|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 12:38 PM EST |
According to the
USPTO on
enablement requirement
The purpose of the requirement that the
specification
describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the
art
can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that
the invention is
communicated to the interested public in a
meaningful way. The information
contained in the disclosure
of an application must be sufficient to inform
those skilled
in the relevant art how to both make and use the claimed
invention.
Obvious if you, me and the rest of the public cannot
understand an existing patent then we are unskilled in the
art...
You
also did not refute the fact that you are still not
transforming the
machine
into something different than before.
Any transformation
statement is misleading at best.
It should be
clearly obvious to anyone that
without the necessary
software that implements a patent the computer is
incapable of performing the particularly claimed
combination of
functions. Last part taken from the
USPTO Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure Chapter 2100
Section 2106
For
computer implemented processes, the “machine” is often
disclosed as a general
purpose computer. In these cases, the
general purpose computer may be
sufficiently “particular”
when programmed to perform the process steps. Such
programming creates a new machine because a general purpose
computer, in
effect, becomes a special purpose computer once
it is programmed to perform
particular functions pursuant to
instructions from program software. In re
Alappat, 33 F.3d
1526, 1545, 31 USPQ 1545, ___ (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also
Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 1329, 100 USPQ2d 1140,
1145 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (stating “a programmed computer
contains circuitry unique to that
computer”). However,
"adding a 'computer-aided' limitation to a claim covering
an
abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render
[a] patent claim
eligible" where the claims "are silent as
to how a computer aids the method,
the extent to which a
computer aids the method, or the significance of a
computer
to the performance of the method." DealerTrack v. Huber, ___
F.3d
___, ___, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To
qualify as a particular
machine under the test, the claim
must clearly convey that the computer is
programmed to
perform the steps of the method because such programming, in
effect, creates a special purpose computer limited to the
use of the
particularly claimed combination of elements
(i.e., the programmed
instructions) performing the
particularly claimed combination of functions. If
the claim
is so abstract and sweeping that performing the process as
claimed
would cover substantially all practical applications
of a judicial exception,
such as a mathematical algorithm,
the claim would not satisfy the test as the
machine would
not be sufficiently particular.
Thus, by providing a
program that computes the Dow Jones
average, you have really transformed
a computer from
one that does not compute that index to a computer that can
now compute that index. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
