|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
Your idea is a good one. The suggestion of using a manipulation of symbols for
the test does exactly that. In a brief to the Federal Circuit where the number
of pages is limited, I think it may be wise to do argue as you suggest to
conserve space.
It assumes no one moves the goalposts by arguing over what should be the
definition of abstract. Part of the problem is that the notion of abstractness
is not well defined so there is room for creative arguments. But the Supreme
Court has ruled that mathematical algorithms are abstract. I think the argument
should keep at least a showing that a mathematical algorithm is a manipulation
of symbols. This should help keep the goalposts sufficiently firmly in place.
Also, the mathematical theory about universal algorithms is critical to
understand the difference between a computer program and a dedicated circuit for
the same computation. It is also part of the explanation of why programming a
computer doesn't make a new machine. If these points are presented to the
Federal Circuit then this part of mathematics must be retained.
Even in the case where the mathematical details must be presented, it is wise to
point out the possibility of short circuiting the syllogism as you say. It will
make the argument more resilient to disputes over what is mathematics.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
