Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
If you can't point to a physical embodiment, it's abstract. Abstract
concepts are not supposed to be patentable.
Software - all forms - have
no physical embodiment. A software representation of a circuit is still
abstract.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- abstract and physical - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Obfuscation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
Have to dash.
Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
Independent claim 10 is a method claim.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
See the information on
Claim Interpretation on the PTO website.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
There was disagreement! See the opinions of the Federal Circuit
meeting en banc to consider In Re Alappat in 1994.
Moreover
Alappat was the case that set the precedent that a programmed computer
was a machine clearly patent-eligible under Section 101, provided that it was
programmed to give rise to a useful, concrete and tangible result. This
ruling granted near-automatic patent-eligibility to software
applications.
You will find this explained in the CAFC opinion in AT&T Corp v. Excel
Communications Inc.. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|