And the description of how to build the machine, or how to
perform the process are merely ideas set down on paper, and are not an actual
machine or an actual performance of a process.
The principle is
known as the printed matter doctrine and is why software per se isn't
patentable. A process has to transform subject matter. It's also why the
recently discredited Beauregard claims were put forth, that the process
(software) be captured in a computer readable medium.
See The current status of the Beauregard claim
after Cybersource v. Retail Decisions, the basic problem that putting
software on a substrate isn't new, even as a patent claim. Note our budding
young patent lawyer struggles to describe it as an article of manufacture, while
the computer readable medium isn't specifically constrained. As the IT Law
Wiki's Beauregard
claim page points out distribution is increasingly electronic, mooting the
point of the medium.
We also see the Patent Office bravely attempt to make
the distinction of 'transitory signals' as a mark of distinctiveness for
articles of manufacture, yet the problem remains that signals are abstracts.
See
How Signal Claims Can Clear the
“Abstract Idea” Hurdle or the PDF (117 KB) for further sophistry on how to make the abstract real for
purposes of patent grant. You could note that abstract goods transfer in Second
Life would qualify for purposes expounded in the article. Back to the ages old
philosophical question represented by "The Name is the Thing".
And the point
I was making reflects that a patented process (method) requires actual
performance, the transformation of subject matter into a different state or
thing. It's generally consistent with Ian Al's comment, but not yours as
reiterated in your responding comment and quoted above.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
