|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
Look to Cybersource. There the courts held that simple reformatting or
rearranging of data, eg. converting an integer to a floating-point number
without doing any conversion of the number itself to some other number or
something other than a number, isn't sufficient to meet the criteria for a
transformation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
>>>
There are also several transformations:
a floating-point number memory register representation IS CONVERTED to a
floating-point register representation;
the converted floating-point number IS ROUNDED;
a new floating-point value IS GENERATED BY performing an arithmetic computation
upon said rounded number; and
the resulting new floating-point register value IS CONVERTED to a
floating-point
memory register representation.
How many transformations does a fella gotta do?
<<<
Is "memory register" considered a patent lawyer term for a memory
location? And what does it mean to CONVERT a memory register representation to
a register representation? To me, that sounds like copying a value from a cpu
register into a memory location.
I can't believe that taking a floating point number out of a register and
rounding it and putting it back in a register is considered an invention with
lots of physical transformations. This sounds more pathetic than the original
description of the case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scav on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
All these 'transformations' are simple arithmetical
operations you could do on paper, or in your mind. The
entire thing is itself a mathematical algorithm and
expressable entirely in abstract mathematical notation.
You may have weird emotional reasons for *wanting* to
believe that it would be good public policy to allow such
things to be patented, but I respectfully urge you to
perform a reality check, both about the likelihood and the
desirability of this decision being reversed on appeal.
You're not making a very good case for it so far.
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I am confident - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- I am confident - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 11:22 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
| For at least the foregoing additional reasons, transformation of floating
point
number meets the requirement.
If I could go to the local
supermarket, buy a dozen floating point numbers, and
you had a machine that
transforms these floating point numbers, you would be
right. For example, I
bought a machine that transforms raw eggs, and a bit of
water, and some
electrical power, into cooked eggs. That is patentable.
However, I
checked, and there is no place where I can buy floating point numbers
that
could be transformed. They seem to be an abstract thing. Therefore, the
"transformation" that you see is not the "transformation" meant by patent law. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I am confident - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 09:55 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
