|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
What you present is the factual underpinning for an argument based
on prior art and obviousness, rather than on section 101 patentable subject
matter. E.g., does hitting a different nail with the same hammer create a new
hammer?
Is this really what I do? I thought it was the factual
underpinning of an argument that programming a computer does not factually make
a machine in any technologically meaningful sense. This could be used in any
sort of legal arguments, for example one may say that if no machine has been
invented in the first place then a claim directed to a machine should not be
allowed. Is this an issue of prior art? Then why would we bother finding out if
the machine exists in the prior art if no machine is invented in the first
place? Could this be better argued as section 101? Section 112 (indefiniteness)?
I don't know. I suppose it may depend on how a lawyer wishes to argue these
facts. I suspect there may be options here and I entrust these legal
considerations to lawyers.
In any event I will trust that lawyers are able
to back up their arguments with case law. I don't have to do this myself and I
shouldn't have to.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
