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
Logical Processes, and observations on 'bright line' tests | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Logical Processes, and observations on 'bright line' tests
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 10:27 AM EDT
I see better what you mean. Your logical level corresponds to what is described
in section A.4 when it discusses logical data types and the Curry-Howard
correspondence.

The mathematical algorithm exception to patent-eligible subject matter already
exists. The Supreme Court has established it in Benson, Flook and Diehr. They
have treated algorithms as laws of nature but the Federal Circuit prefers to
treat them as abstract ideas.

The "brightline" test is sturdier than you think. An what you cite of
it is incomplete.

> Claims reciting software will be patentable when they
> claim a referent which is a patent-eligible invention.

A referent is a physical object. This test requires that the physical object be
part of the invention and not merely referenced by the use of bits. When the
meaning of bits is not a physical object there is no referent. And when the
claim is just software running on the computer the referent is not part of the
invention. This is quite a constraint that is imposed.

The part you are missing is that the interpretants never distinguish over the
prior art. So all meanings which are not referent must be ignored when
determining whether the claim is new and nonobvious.

[ 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 )