|
|
|
| Authored by: lnuss on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
Even IF (contrary to fact) all else made it eligible, the fact that this
procedure has been around and in use for decades prior to the patent being
applied for should make it ineligible.
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scav on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
How much would you bet this will be appealed *successfully*?
Referring to a "memory register format" or whatever is not the same as
the claim
actually referring to a specific machine. And if the machine is a
general-purpose
computer, the claim fails for not inventing anything new.
Also, your assertion that the claim is not abstract: unsupported, or you have a
weird definition of abstract.
We'll see how it goes.
---
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 Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
You're forgetting the holding in Dealertrack, where the court held
that just using a general-purpose machine wasn't, in and of itself, enough to
satisfy the criteria. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
