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
Worth thinking about 'inventing around' as applied to software | 282 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Worth thinking about 'inventing around' as applied to software
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 07:02 AM EDT
Transport Format Combination Indicator encoding apparatus which comprises (i.e. includes) a orthogonal sequence generator and a mask sequence generator, together with an operation unit for adding such sequences.
I am heartily depressed reading your original post about claims construction. One of the patent claims is for an on-a-mobile-phone. You seem to explain how Samsung now have a monopoly for an on-a-mobile-phone claim when associated with any other independent claim in the patent for which there is no prior art.

The USPTO say there must be only one invention in each patent. Independent claims must all be required for the invention if there is only one invention in there.

I am not skilled in the art of... whatever is in the quote, above, but I would like to beat it about the head with PolR's semiotics. I'm betting that none of the terms of the art of... terms of the art include the physical details of the components of the Transport Format Combination Indicator encoding apparatus. I deduce that it is a combination of software on-a-phone and digital circuitry in-a-phone. It is either an interpretant of that combination or a referent if one can poke it out with a stick and touch it. It's only existence is as a sign-vehicle in the mobile phone.

The patent text is an abstract way of human beings envisaging the mathematical functions needed to determine the mathematical values required by the standard to set up a lowest layer communications session.

One skilled in the art is given no assistance in putting together the algorithms and electronic circuitry for the referent and thus the means of delivering the abstract mathematical functions is not given in the patent and neither is the precise method of employing the number in an inventive way to set up the session.

As you have pointed out, elsewhere, it is both a method and machine, but the steps of the method are not specified and the making of the machine is, also, not specified. Further, The method has no significant post process activity and the machine has no useful purpose (without the matching mobile phone network, protocols and circuitry).

Even if the phone were a function plus means apparatus, it cannot be an invention without the rest of the mobile phone system and it depends on the prior art in the rest of the network for its interworking (unless the mobile phone was invented before the mobile phone network). It can only be an invented component of a mobile phone system which is dependent on further inventions in the network.

It fails USC 35, 101 because it claims a machine and a method as a single invention and the invention, on its own, has no useful function. It fails 112 because it is function without the means and it fails to specify the claimed inventive concept.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )