|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
Not only have they ignored the Supreme Court, they have ignored their own
rulings.
In their analysis the "majority" has ignored the elements of the
claims and distilled the invention down to a "gist", which they called
"escrow". They then declared that escrow was abstract.
However, their own precedents rule that such distillations are improper:
II. DISTILLING THE INVENTION DOWN TO A “GIST” OR “THRUST” OF AN INVENTION
DISREGARDS “AS A WHOLE” REQUIREMENT
Distilling an invention down to the “gist” or “thrust” of an invention
disregards the requirement of analyzing the subject matter “as a whole.” W.L.
Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (restricting consideration of the
claims to a 10% per second rate of stretching of unsintered PTFE and
disregarding other limitations resulted in treating claims as though they read
differently than allowed); Bausch & Lomb v.Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796
F.2d 443, 447-49, 230 USPQ 416, 419-20 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
823 (1987) (District court focused on the “concept of forming ridgeless
depressions having smooth rounded edges using a laser beam to vaporize the
material,” but “disregarded express limitations that the product be an
ophthalmic lens formed of a transparent cross-linked polymer and that the laser
marks be surrounded by a smooth surface of unsublimated polymer.”). See also
Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1530, 220 USPQ 1021, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(“treating the advantage as the invention disregards statutory requirement that
the invention be viewed ‘as a whole’”); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810
F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ2d 1593 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987)
(district court improperly distilled claims down to a one word solution to a
problem).
The claims of the subject patent are limited by the establishment of shadow
accounts and the posting of credits and debits to those accounts. This is not a
requirement of the abstract idea of escrow. Therefore, the court is wrong is
asserting that claims read on or encompass the entire abstract idea of
"escrow."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
