I don't think that some(thing|one) who calculates inaccurately can be said to
be 'performing calculations'. Proof of the pudding, and all that. If the
answer's wrong, what (it|you) did wasn't a calculation, but a
mis-calculation.
Thus the opinion, when it says Unless the
claims require a computer to perform operations that are not merely accelerated
calculations, a computer does not itself confer patent eligibility
leaves unsaid the obvious corollary, that all computers are only
capable of accelerated calculations1, ergo a patent drafted on
the template which goes
Claim 1: A method for ... comprising steps of
...
Claim 2: Do Claim 1 with a computer.
is not eligible merely
because of claim 2.
I like the dissection (evisceration, maybe) of the
media and system claims, too.
Amid all the ecstasy, though, I have to observe
that the opinion is clear that every claim of every patent must be assessed on
its merits; they are not trying to lay down grand principles. The Supreme Court
might like to do so, perhaps.
1. Unless you write
from
braincode import intuition, wisdom, empathy at the top of your
script... ---
(c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
