I've more faith in the Supreme Court to review my examples and understand
what I meant.
Even if the patent Lawyers and Federal Circuit Judges (at
least some of them) actually want to patent "a particular pattern of electricity
as applied to the telegraph wire" - I'm absolutely positive the Supremes
wouldn't allow that.
I have no hope for Patent Lawyers like Gene Quinn to
understand why "patenting the process of 2+2= as applied to a calculator" is a
very bad idea. Why patenting E=MC2 authored out to "to resolve the
sum of energy...." is a bad idea.
I have no hope the Federal Circuit - as
long as they keep seeming to do what Gene Quinn said about "the Federal Circuit
overruling the Supremes" - will see reason.
So my hope lies in the
Supremes. And as a result, they are my audience. And as they've shown in both
Bilski and Mayo, they appear inclined to see through the fast talking word
play... but they do need to understand in order to see through it.
As a
result: Clear, simple explanations with plenty of examples to show that it's
just the change in electrical voltage (your preference) that is occurring and
everything else is abstract language interpretation.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
