|Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT|
|I think you should read the Fonar
As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a
best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is
satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because,
normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not
requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed. It is
well established that what is within the skill of the art need not be disclosed
to satisfy the best mode requirement as long as that mode is described. Stating
the functions of the best mode software satisfies that description test. We have
so held previously and we so hold today. See In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods.,
Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1537-38, 25 USPQ2d 1241, 1248-49
(Fed.Cir.1992); In re Sherwood, 613 F.2d 809, 816-17, 204 USPQ 537, 544 (CCPA
1980). Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for
adequately disclosing the functions of software. See Sherwood, 613 F.2d at
816-17, 204 USPQ at 544.
According to case law, the requirement
for disclosures are met when the functions of software are disclosed. Source
code and flow charts are not required.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT|
I came across such a case just recently in a patent application in the
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL
REACTION, Pub US2011/0005506, A1 Jan 13, 2011.
A Cold Fusion patent in
which Claim 8:
8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in
that in said method catalyze materials are used.
Wherein no where
in the publication is the identity of a catalyzing agent disclosed, which would
make claim 8 indefinite wouldn't it?
No where in any publicly available
information can the identity of a useful catalyst be found. (Useful in the
patent sense, increasing the exothermic yield of the reaction in this
In the Description:
In applicant exothermal reaction the
hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are
compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates
internuclear percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of
optional elements, thereby triggering a capture of a proton by the nickel
powder, with a consequent transformation of nickel to copper and a beta+ decay
of the latter to a nickel nucleus having a mass which is by an unit larger than
that of the starting nickel.
No where is the method of introducing
these 'optional elements', disclosed nor any constraints on operating
conditions, nor the effect they produce, other than "made stronger".
patent application doesn't teach the claimed invention, the quid pro quo of
disclosing the invention in exchange for a legal monopoly for a limited time to
advance the art. A practitioner of the art is not enabled to reproduce the
invention from it's description.
A careful analysis of the apparatus would
demonstrate that other than this missing catalyst a hobbyist chemist with access
to a machine shop or machinist could reproduce the apparatus as described,
though curiously there is no particular mention of how to convey heat away
produced by the exothermic reaction. I'd also recommend that someone procure
powdered nickel, producing it is fraught with danger to biological
Now contrast this with software patents, where the level of detail
found in a description is also abstract. Should a practitioner of the art find
it is possible to construct (manufacture) such an invention from the
Description, doesn't that speak to obviousness?
If not, there is indeed secret
sauce being withheld.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- Secret Sauce in a patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
- You are ranting as if this were a patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT
- meh - Authored by: scav on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- meh - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT