|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 01:31 AM EDT |
I quoted the various cases with the emphasis on the parts I wanted to draw
attention to. As always, if one needs to cite a case for legal reasons, that is
inadvisable.
The point I was making was that Fonar confirms that just disclosing the
functions delivered by software is quite OK, when the software is just like nuts
and bolt and just 'is within the skill of the art'.
The converse is also true. Fonar does not say that it is OK just to disclose the
functions when the inventive concept is in the software.
The 'tied to a particular machine' issue says that a process does not have to be
tied to a particular machine to be valid. I agree. Software fails to meet the
requirements for a patentable process because of Benson, Flook, Diehr and
Bilski.
Mayo and Bilski reiterated the Supreme Court opinions in Benson, Diehr and
Flook. They are saying they are the pivotal opinions on which lesser courts
should rely.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|