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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
You missed a bit | 282 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You missed a bit
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 04:37 AM EDT
If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
This has appeared in a previous Groklaw article, although I could never find it. The article explained that, if the multiple inventions used the same subject matter described and claimed in the original application, the distinct and independent inventions could be covered by one patent. As you say, the Director, at his discretion, can require the inventions to be split among multiple patents and those patents can duplicate or cite the subject matter descriptions in the original application.

This article reports on the courts bearing down on a well known abuse of the concession.

112 says
(b) 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 invention.
In the patent in question, the machine and method claims are technically independent, but are not independent inventions. The specification does not meet the requirement of 112 of distinctly claiming the invention subject matter. The invention cannot, according to 101 (as opined by major contributor, Judge Rich) be a combination of the four statutory subject matter classes.

Neither the 'Transport Format Combination Indicator (TFCI) encoding apparatus in a CDMA mobile communication system' nor the 'Transport Format Combination Indicator (TFCI) encoding method in a CDMA mobile communication system' are independent inventions in their own right because the machine does not do anything without the rest of the system and the method does not do anything in its own right, without both the machine and the system.

I'm surprised that dio gratia did not chime in to point out that the patent defines the mobile phone part of generating signals that are exchanges, as a protocol, between phone and network. The patent uses abstract terms to describe the way the mobile phone takes part in the defined signalling protocol. The invention is the signal and not the means of signalling. It is dressed up with an imagined machine and an imagined method with no technical means given. Signals are not statutory subject matter.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )