This leaves plenty of room for improving technology. What
you
can't do is patent a calculation and pretend it is a claim on a machine.
But
your example is claiming all possible fluid computers for all possible
computations and this is overly broad.
Now I know you
are not reading my posts. The first claim I
recited (which is from an issued
patent) is not as clearly written as I think it
should have been, but it does
limit the types of computations it covers (see
paragraphs (I) and (K), for
example), and it certainly limits the structure of the
computer on which it is
performed. Under your symbology argument, when it
is specific enough? When it
covers only non-Newtonian fluids and
computations solving quantum chromodymic
problems? What if, instead of
reading the outputs, I wire them to a
intergalactic missile? Does your
argument tell me when it is specific
enough?
The second claim that I contrived is extremely specific as to what
it
covers and provides you with plenty of wiggle room to avoid infringement.
Is
it specific enough? Apparently, to you, it is not. But the reasons you
give do
not even seem to follow from the proposal you are making.
Patents
cover embodiments, not ideas. If the embodiment is not
supported by the
specification by a written, enabling description, the law can
handle that
already. If the embodiment is obvious, the law can handle that
already, too.
What can you possibly add by confusing the concepts of
patentable subject
matter with obviousness? All I see that you are adding is
yet another body of
law that will have to be developed from scratch by
repeated
litigation.
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.
Then why don't you find this case so that we can discuss
it rather than
unfounded assumptions that it stands for your particular
interpretation of the
law? And we can see whether the case is still good law
under the rewriting of
the Patent Act in, say, 1952. (Eli Whitney got his
patent on the cotton gin in
1794.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
