|Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 03:03 PM EDT|
|It's a lookup table. I don't assume any claims are valid.|
Any of the claims which simply look up values in a table are invalid by Bilski.
Any of the claims that multiply two numbers together are likewise invalid.
Any of the claims that compare and sort two numbers are likewise invalid.
There is no invention, and the subject matter is abstract.
Thank you for attempting to educate us in the dark art of claim
construction. Your efforts have revealed to me at least that the
systemic rot is deeper than I suspected. Perhaps the clue is your
> I assume for the purpose of this discussion that the claims are valid.
The ultimate test for validity of claims is surely 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 - 105,
not some ex-officio Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 05:33 AM EDT|
Conclusion.— The specification shall conclude with one
or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
As you note, 'there is no discussion of inventiveness'.
However, the intention of the law is to protect the claimed invention. If claims
46-51 are not specified as particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
invented subject matter, then the law does not provide a monopoly on
I find it almost impossible to concentrate on your discussion
points because of the elephant. I keep thinking that the folk in the courtroom
are the only folk who see any value in the discussion of your point that the
patent is only infringed if the elephant is pink.
The claims you
analyse are the English label, 'Transport Format Combination Indicator', that
stands for a number expressed as binary symbols produced by one or more versions
of a math function that only has an outline English description, has a limited
range of binary represented numbers as data and is not provided with an invented
algorithm to compute the function. Other claims call for a machine that carries
out the inexplicit math function.
The legal argument is that any
machine that carries out a math algorithm sufficiently close to the outline
English description of the math function, regardless of the algorithm used,
infringes on the patented method.
Statutory method subject matter is
supposed to be newly invented and useful. The outline description of a math
function cannot be a useful or a new invention.
A valid patented method
cannot be infringed by a machine. It can only be infringed by a person carrying
out the steps of the method (with or without a machine as a means) to achieve
the material result claimed by the patent. This method has no material result. A
successful communication session is not a patentable material result. It is an
I think that the real issue that you highlight is that
the courts are prepared to argue infringement of claims before initially asking
what is actually the distinctly-claimed and protected invention specified in the
patent. That should be the first round of the Markman argument and I suspect
that, in the case of many of the patents we see, the court would give up before
the second round was ever reached.
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]