|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
| "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."
My point was that the
argument that a combination of a computer plus software is not patentable
because the the computer was known is specious.
Nearly all, if not all patented
inventions are made up of known components.
You seem to agree with that, so, I
guess we should move on.
"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."
You are mistaken. The method of hitting a nail comprising
hitting the nail with a hammer was, presumably, co-invented with the hammer and
claims to the method would have been allowable either is the same patent as the
hammer or co-filed application or application claiming the benefit of the hammer
application.
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.
We agree on this point. I'm not sure why you made this
comment.
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."
However, the process that is implemented by the software is a
process and is therefore well within 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 categories 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."
However, the process that is implemented by the software is
a process and is therefore well within one of the four patent-eligible
categories of §101.
Again, you are using "Abstract" differently than the
SCOTUS.
According to SCOTUS, one can't patent the abstract idea "speech
recognition" or "Fourier Transformation", because such a patent would preclude
all such activity and because the specification likely does not disclose every
method. But one can patent PARTICULAR METHODS of performing either.
Here's
claim 1 from A speech recognition patent that issued just last November:
1. A
speech recognition method comprising:
initiating, by a computer system, a state
of a computer program;
selecting, by the computer system, a state recognition
set based on the state of the computer program;
detecting, by the computer
system a gesture of at least one part of a human body;
selecting, by the
computer system, a first recognition set based on the gesture, the first
recognition set being a subset of the state recognition set;
receiving, by the
computer system, a speech input signal; and
recognizing, by the computer
system, the speech input signal in the context of the first recognition set, the
recognizing resulting in a recognition
result.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8321219?dq=speech+recognition+methods&
amp;hl=en&sa=X&ei=9_6lUc69MeXN0wGlxoCICw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CD
sQ6AEwAQ
And another that that issued in February:
1. A method for
converting audio speech data to text data using a portable, wireless data
device, the method comprising the steps:
recording an audio file of analog
audio speech data on the portable, wireless data device;
converting the analog
audio speech data to digital audio data;
transmitting, via a wireless
connection using a wireless data protocol, the audio file having the digital
audio data to a remote processor;
converting the digital audio data to text
data at the remote processor;
receiving, via the wireless connection using the
wireless data protocol, the text data at the portable, wireless data device;
and
transmitting, by the portable, wireless data device, the digital text data
to a wireless-enabled printer configured for printing the text
data.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8370141?dq=speech+recognition+methods&am
p;hl=en&sa=X&ei=n_-lUaW9J5HI0gGwgIGoCw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAjgK
Here's a
claim from an FFT patent that issued in September:
11. A method for
performing a variable length fast Fourier transform (FFT) system with a
plurality of cascaded butterfly stages each containing at least one of
processing elements, comprising the following step:
generating a bypassing
signal, based on a requirement of different data length FFT
operations;
dividing a connection between said processing elements or said
cascaded butterfly stages according to the bypassing signal, to perform either a
first data length FFT operation or a second data length FFT operation, wherein
the second data length is shorter than the first data length;
generating a
control signal depended on requirements of different data lengths for different
FFT operation modes; and
selectively switching at least one multiplexer by
different levels of the control signal to output either of two different kinds
of twiddle factors to a corresponding multiplier interposing between the
neighboring butterfly stages for generating a twiddle factor multiplication
product.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8275820?dq=fast+fourier+transform+me
thod&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cwCmUZSVB4rN0gGG9oHoBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAjgK [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
