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
I think you misunderstood. | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I got your 112(f) right heea:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 02:49 PM EDT
You are mistaken. The process is disclosed in the broad flow charts. Each box
in the flow chart represents hundred or thousands of ways to achieve each stage.
The invention is at the architecture design level, not the nitty gritty of the
machine code. Sorry.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think you misunderstood.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 02:52 PM EDT
He's showing us how he would avoid providing any exact steps or sequences, and
instead claim general functionality, by saying "on a computer". The
courts have generally found that this deception sufficiently specifies the
"structure" required to get away with functional claiming.

There won't be any specific, exact steps to limit the claims of his proposed
patent.

This is part of what President Obama is attempting to fix.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.03 seconds