I'm confused. Are you referring to Fonar
Corp.
v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 41 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir.,
1997)?
Are you citing it in support of your assertion that "IIRC there is case
law
that says you can patent a specific cotton gin but you can't patent the
principle of a cotton gin?" If so, I can't find anything in there that supports
your point. All I see is a holding by the Federal Circuit that "Fonar's
witnesses
testified that providing the functions of the software was more
important than
providing the computer code. We agree." (107 F.3d 1543, 1549).
Indeed, it
looks like the patent holder (Fonar) won this particular case on
every point
that was before the Court.
Are you referring to another Fonar
v. GE case that I am missing? Or can
you be more specific as to how this case
supports your point? Or are you just
asserting that "It's the disclosed
functions in the patent, stupid!" If it's the
latter, I would tend to agree
with you, if you further qualify your statement to
say, "It's the disclosed
and claimed functions in the patent, stupid!"
Unless, of course, you
are looking for prior art to invalidate another
patent. In that case, I
wouldn't
insist upon the extra qualification. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
