I'm still having trouble finding the specific reference I'd like. I've just
assigned a task to myself:
Make a list of all the associating Supreme Court
rulings that touch on abstract concepts that I have crossed paths with via
Groklaw over the last 5 years
Go through each of them to extract
specific quotes that I feel are rather important points that the Supremes are
making
Of course, that'll take me some time.
Back to the specific
concept. As I understand what the Supreme's are saying, I'm using "pencil and
paper" to signify "it can be done with the mind".
Put in that
context:
1) Using a spoon, you can lift soup to your mouth - can you lift
soup to your mouth with just your mind?
2) Using a screwdriver you can
embed a screw in wood - can you embed a screw into wood with just your
mind?
3) Using a pencil and paper, you can calculate the full area of a
triangle having been provided with the measurements of 2 of the sides and one of
the angles... can you perform that same task with just your mind?
The
answers to 1 and 2 are no - unless you happen to have the mental power of
telekinesis. Your examples of a spoon and screwdriver are misleading as they
are completely outside the concept of "performing a process with your
mind".
The answer to 3 is yes - some more easily then others due to
better training - but all are capable.
Of course, all that should be
quite clear given my previous example of language interpretation via
Morse.
The definition of abstract that was left out, to which I refer, to
which I believe the Supremes refer, is:
Existing in thought or as an idea
but not having a physical existence.
Like math, language, communication. A
few quotes from Mayo v
Prometheus:
"[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas" are not
patentable.
"Phenomena of nature, though just
discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not
patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological
work."
"[P]ost-solution activity" that is purely
"conventional or obvious," theCourt wrote, "can[not] transform an unpatentable
principle into a patentable process."
But it held that
simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a
computer, was not a patentable application of that
principle.
Thus, in Morse the Court set aside as
unpatentable Samuel Morse’s general claim for "‘the use of the motive power of
the electric or galvanic current . . . however developed, for making or
printing intelligible characters, letters, or signs, at any
distances,’"
Bolding mine.
As a result, I stand by my
opinion:
If you use existing hardware and only interpret the signals the
hardware receives differently: according to how I understand what the Supremes
have stated it's not patentable subject matter
You want a patent? Your
best tactic to acquire a patent is to build a brand new machine that can collect
those signals.
Of course - at that point, if existing radio technology
already receives those signals, your patent should be rejected by the USPTO due
to prior art anyway.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
You are mocking the US Supreme Court. If
it can be done in the mind or with a pencil
and paper, it is unlikely to pass the bar
now set by the court, which asks: where is
the machine? For that matter, where is the
invention? Process can sometimes work, but
after Bilski, it's harder.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
