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
I still don't find printed matter in claims 1 and 2 | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I still don't find printed matter in claims 1 and 2
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 10:41 PM EDT
We can write a claim to an article of manufacture comprising paper and ink
structured in a certain manner. An article of manufacture is patentable subject
matter. Then we can argue that if the article of manufacture is patentable as an
article of manufacture, it cannot cease to be patentable because it is
configured in a certain fashion. This mimic you argument about a machine claim.
But this argument runs counter to the printed matter doctrine. It cannot be
correct. Configurations of the ink in a book are not patentable subject matter.

What makes the machine claim different? The machine produces the printed matter
because its function is to perform some printing process. If the process is not
patentable why allow an end-run around the doctrine by allowing the same method
in the form of the machine? They are either both patentable or both
unpatentable. Any other outcome is illogical.

By your interpretation a computer configured to read and display a document
containing certain words is patentable and the printed matter doctrine would not
apply. This is identical in effect to patenting the contents of electronic
documents. This outcome cannot be correct.

Here is another aspect of the issue. By your argument one may patent a machine
for displaying some certain type of information as long as it is new and
nonobvious. If one discover a new and nonobvious law of nature he can patent all
machines for stating that law of nature. It would not be possible for anyone to
print it or display it on a website without infringing on some patent claims.
The same could be true of any statement which is new and nonobvious. Do you
really think the courts will allow this outcome? This is undoing the separation
between copyrights and patents.

I think not even the most pro-patent judges like Rader or Newman will let this
happen. And if they are silly enough to prove me wrong the Supreme Court will
overrule them.

[ 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 )