|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
How does that not make any abstract process as performed with a computer
non-obvious?
You list an abstract process that can be done in the mind
that you don't think can be done on a computer - and I'll show you how you're
wrong.
And if you think you can use a computer to perform a process that
can not be done in the mind - give just 1 example of such a process that can be
done on a computer.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
Speech algorithms are still nothing but abstract concepts. It's the ability
of taking what one does "naturally" and trying to understand it so that one can
get a computer to do the same task.
If one understands all the factors,
then one can make an algorithm to "end all speech algorithms" so-to-speak. This
doesn't alter the fact it's still an abstract concept and nothing
but.
For example, the concept of context as involved in speech. Does
Siri or it's competitor use context in order to decide what the word should
be?
If not, then the algorithm is a very poor implementation of what the
mind does when it deals with the abstract concept.
But it's still
abstract.
Apply an algorithm specifically built for English and it'll
fail spectacularly if not modified to deal with Japanese/Chinese.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
You commented:1. All inventions are combinations of known components
(or at least 99% are).
That is only true with a broad definition
of the word 'components'. Extracts from CLS Bank v. Alice:While the
categories of patent-eligible subject matter recited in § 101 are broad, their
scope is limited by three important judicially created exceptions. “[L]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are excluded from patent
eligibility...
Thus, even inventions that fit within one or more of the
statutory categories are not patent eligible if drawn to a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea...
Accordingly, the basic steps
in a patent-eligibility analysis can be summarized as follows. We must first ask
whether the claimed invention is a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter. If not, the claim is ineligible under §
101.
The decision warns about applying the judicial exceptions
too broadly. Although it can be said that a process comprises step components,
compositions of matter comprise the components of the composition and a
manufacture is derived from component parts and materials, §101, which deals
with patent eligibility makes no use of the word and therefore patent
eligibility is not determined by the inventions components whether known or not
known.
2. Using a hammer to hit a nail is no longer patentable,
because it is not new.
Using a hammer to hit a nail has never been
patentable subject matter. That is a method of hitting a nail. The hammer was a
machine invention with the useful and novel use of hitting nails as its
inventive concept.
3. A particular method of pealing a tomato using
a hammer in a particular way might be patentable as it would seem to be new and
not obvious.
This is a process (and method, see §100) for peeling
a tomato using a known machine. It is the exercise of the method to obtain
significant post process activity (See, Diehr) that is protected by the patent.
Other uses of the known machine (See, §100) are not covered by the patent and
neither is the machine, itself.
4. While on the first day of the
existence of a computer it may have been
envisioned that any data processing
imaginable could be done by a computer, that
does not make every use of a
computer to process data known or obvious.
For example, I respectfully submit
that while one may have, on that day,
thought that some day computers would be
able able to "understand"
human speech and respond appropriately thereto, every
method for getting a
computer to understand and respond to speech was not known
or obvious.
The general purpose computer has always been able to
do what a general purpose computer could do the day it was invented. That is to
execute computer instructions from a program saved in a computer file. Writing a
new program is a new use for a known machine. The program fails to fit one of
the four patent-eligible categories of §101.
Accordingly,
particular methods for getting a computer to understand and respond
to speech
are patentable.
Computers are only capable of executing computer
instructions in a program file. A method is one of the four patent-eligible
catagories of §101. However, writing a computer program is not a patent eligible
process or method. It is the creative expression of abstract ideas and is one of
the judicial exclusions. Ways of arranging computer instructions such that a
general purpose computer appears to an observer to be understanding or saying
something has no post-process activity and serves only to create an illusion in
the mind of the observer. The abstract idea of creating an illusion in the
imagination of an observer is non-statutory subject
matter.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
