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 | # ]
|
