If it's trying to patent the calculation, it fails by not saying what the calculation is. What's left is the rounding itself, and the patent doesn't say how you round the numbers, only that you do. It's trying to patent the act of rounding, not a method for rounding.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 03:30 PM EDT
  • Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 06:40 PM EDT

Thinking about it, I realized why the patent sounded odd. It's because the "inefficient" method is actually the most efficient method of getting the correct result. Their "more efficient" method is only more efficient if you can accept 100% error in your results.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 09:58 AM EDT
  • Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 11:33 AM EDT
    • Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 01:24 PM EDT
      • Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 01:54 PM EDT