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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Patenting speech algorithms = should not have happened | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Patenting speech algorithms = should not have happened
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 03:33 PM EDT
You are using "abstract" differently than SCOTUS. When you use
"abstract", you mean.... well you label just about everything you
can't touch as abstract. When the Supremes say abstract, they mean vague, or
general.

A method for combining values, the method comprising:
Receiving a first value;
Receiving a second value;
adding the first value to the second value.

The Supremes would agree with you that the above is abstract as it covers all
addition.

A method for determining two weeks wages, the method comprising:
Receiving a value of a wage earned in a first week;
Receiving a value of a wage earned in a second week;
adding the value of the wage earned in a first week to the value of the wage
earned in a second week, thereby determining the wages of the two weeks.

The Supremes would not say that the above claim is to an abstraction. It does
not preclude all addition. It applies addition to a particular problem. The
manipulated values represent a real world tangible etc...

[ 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 )