|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:55 AM EST |
This was no mistake. I spared everyone else the repeat of U.S.C. 35 §101. On the
assumption that this patented invention is not a process, manufacture, or
composition of matter invention, I reduce the section to just what is left in
the law; machines.Sec. 101. - Inventions
patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful machine, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to
the conditions and requirements of this title.
The USPTO guidance
points out that §101 limits patentable inventions to just those four categories;
a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
For the
Apple patent to be valid it must be a brand new, useful machine or a useful
improvement to an existing machine. That's what the law says.
The
patent does not make it clear which it is, but the reference to the mobile
touchpad device suggests it is a useful improvement to existing mobile devices.
The useful improvement is made by adding more 'instructions' to the existing
mobile machine.
The example I chose was a Samsung Galaxy and a Samsung
Galaxy. One of them has been improved in a useful way that is a newly patentable
machine, but in all other respects, they are identical.
U.S.C. 35 §101
is quite clear in what can be patented. Ideas cannot be patented. Only a machine
or an improvement to a machine can be patented. The USPTO warns about trying to
patent abstract ideas. So, if there are any abstract ideas in the claims, those
claims are invalid.
Is 'instructions' that 'translate and enlarge'
'electronic documents' an abstract idea? Is making an undefined 'gesture'
another abstract idea? Are either of them true components of an improved
machine, or are they abstract ideas of what a machine might do?
What
is a 'structured electronic document'? Since an electronic document in a mobile
computing device is a file containing binary signs grouped in such a way as to
represent glyphs and images on a piece of printed paper, in what way does the
structuring of the file constitute a component of a machine? What are the
'boxes' in the structured document? Are they machine components? Are they
abstract ideas on how content may be represented? What part do they play in the
construction of the improved machine?
That one can have two identical
mobile phones, only one of which infringes a patent is ridiculous, but that is
what this patent owner is claiming. The instructions generated by added
programming are not specified. That means that the machine modifications are not
specified.
My comment is another way of demonstrating that stating
abstract functions that may or may not be carried out by a computer is not
statutory subject matter. That's why I say, tell me how this particular
invention is patentable subject matter by the section of patent law, U.S.C. 35
§101, which defines 'Inventions patentable'. If it isn't, the patent is
invalid.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:17 PM EST |
Are the two the same?
According to the software patent Lawyers arguing
that different software on the exact same hardware makes a different machine:
Nope, they are not the same!
Yup, you read that right: apply software app
X to the first device but not the second and you have a different patentable
"invention".
Of course plenty of us feel software is not patentable
subject matter (for many reasons) - and in that sense the two phones are
identical so long as the hardware is identical.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
