|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
Abele's patent is available for download here:
https://www.google.com/patents/US4433380?pg=PA1&dq=850,892+Abele&hl=en&a
mp;sa=X&ei=yS-mUavgGu610QHu7YGwAw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA
Beware, the Detailed Description starts at column 7, line 24, but the Greek
letters begin well ahead of that at column 6, line 41. The discrete math
doesn't start until column 8, line 33, but the real snake charming begins at
column 12, line 42 and don't stop until somewhere in column 30.
Patented, patentable, math.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
And the USPTO Appeal Court does not overrule the Supremes.
Which means
I probably disagree with the USPTO result. I disagree with the USPTO and
Federal Circuit a lot.
I've found I disagree with the Supremes a little
bit - but the end result of the rulings are consistent in what I conclude vs
what the Supremes conclude. Different reasons, same results. I'm hoping the
Supremes develop a sufficient understanding of software that at some point we'll
come to the same conclusions for the same reasons.
It seems you've
ignored the physical again:
an improvement in computed tomography
whereby the exposure to X-ray is reduced while the reliability of the
produced image is improved
Exposure to an X-Ray machine is the
physical aspect involved in the patent.
Conventional tomography,
also known as laminography,employs the simultaneous movement in opposite
directions of an X-ray source and an X-ray
film.
There's mention of that feared physical
again.
Conventional tomographic systems are not practical when a
visualized cross-section transverse to the body axis is desired. Computed
tomography was developed to overcome this deficiency among
others.
To put simply: the combination of the previous x-ray device
and film with a computer where a computer was not used before. This is like
adding the first computer to the first auto that will use one - patent eligible
subject matter that passes the basic 101 test. No one here has ever disputed
adding a computer to another machine to improve that machine as patent eligible.
But then... your process doesn't involve adding a computer to something else
physical. There's that rather important difference I keep pointing
out.
Narrowing the beam is advantageous...
There's that
physical involved again. That's the invention, now let's see what the Appeal's
board of the USPTO ruled.
If the claimed invention is a mathematical
algorithm, it is improper subject matter for patent protection
Your
example of a claimed invention is nothing but a matehmatical formula. Even the
USPTO Appeals board recognizes this fails basic 101. The claims
evaluated:
5. A method of displaying data in a field comprising the
steps of calculating the difference between the local value of the data at a
data point in the field and the average value of the data in a region of the
field which surrounds said point for each point in said field, and displaying
the value of said difference as a signed gray scale at a point in a picture
which corresponds to said data point.
6. The method of
claim 5 wherein said data is X-ray attenuation data produced in a two
dimensional field by a computed tomography scanner.
There's
that dreaded physical again. And what did the Appeals Board of the USPTO
find?
We conclude that claim 5 is directed solely to the
mathematical algorithm portion of appellants’ invention and is, thus,
not statutory subject matter under § 101.
We
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claim 6.
And why did
6 pass the muster?
The method of claim 6, unlike that of claim 5,
requires “X-ray attenuation data.” The specification indicates that such
attenuation data is available only when an X-ray beam is produced by a
CAT scanner, passed through an object, and detected upon its
exit.
Ahh - the physical passes the muster.
We are
faced simply with an improved CAT-scan process comparable to the improved
process for curing synthetic rubber in Diehr,supra.
Just in case
you think claim 5 was an anomaly:
7. Apparatus for displaying data
values representative of values at data points in a two dimensional field
comprising:
means for calculating the differences between the local
values of each data point and the average value at data points in a limited
region of said field surrounding each said data point, and
means for
displaying the value of said differences as signed gray scale values at points
in a picture which correspond to said data points.
And the
conclusion:
Thus, claim 7, the apparatus counterpart to claim 5,
suffers the same defects as does claim 5.
Both your examples to
support your math process as patent eligible clearly state your process does not
pass 101.
Declare me wrong all you want. Your insistence does not affect
the clear authorings of either the USPTO Board of Appeals in Abele or the
Supremes reasoning in Diehr.
I was wrong on disagreeing with the USPTO in
Abele! It's nice to see the USPTO in agreement with the Supremes.
And
just to be clear: Abele is not mentioned in the Supreme Court opinion of Bilski.
You really shouldn't rely on Wiki entries so much when the original source is
available.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
