decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
There was disagreement! Federal Circuit en banc, In Re Alappat, 1994 | 282 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Digital circuit....??? as opposed to.... physical circuit???
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
Initial observations on the 7,706,348 patent
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 | # ]

Are you 'importing claim limitations from the specification'?
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 | # ]

There was disagreement! Federal Circuit en banc, In Re Alappat, 1994
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )