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
If it is Gene Quinn... | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
USPTO: No Change to Software Patentability Evaluation
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 11:53 AM EDT
Gene Quinn wrote:
The message [from the USPTO] was this: “there is no change in examination procedure for evaluating subject matter eligibility.” (emphasis in the original)
What Gene Quinn failed to note was that his headline does not relate what the USPTO actually said.

I have few problems with the USPTO guidelines for the examination procedure.
The plain and unambiguous meaning of section 101 is that any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may be patented if it meets the requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35...

Federal courts have held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 does have certain limits. First, the phrase “anything under the sun that is made by man” is limited by the text of 35 U.S.C. § 101, meaning that one may only patent something that is a machine, manufacture, composition of matter or a process... Second, 35 U.S.C. § 101 requires that the subject matter sought to be patented be a “useful” invention...

The subject matter courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena.
CLS Bank v. Alice Corp requires no change to the process. It is the understanding that adding software to an existing machine does not create a new and useful machine which should change the outcome of the process.

I think that Gene Quin has failed to see that comments like:
[E]very general- purpose computer will include “a computer,” “a data storage unit,” and “a communications controller” that would be capable of performing the same generalized functions required of the claimed systems to carry out the otherwise abstract methods recited therein.
makes a dramatic difference on how the procedure will apply to software on a general-purpose computer.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

USPTO: No Change to Software Patentability Evaluation
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 01:50 PM EDT
So are you saying that the patent approval process is to drop applications into
a room full of cats with their feet attached to PATENT GRANTED stamps?

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If it is Gene Quinn...
Authored by: deck2 on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 02:37 PM EDT
If it is Gene Quinn commenting on a patent issue you know it is in favor of
patenting anything and everything for no reason at all.

[ 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 )