decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

But the claim is not to the printed matter! | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
But the claim is not to the printed matter!
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 05:46 AM EDT
I know you are playing devils' advocate, but this is ignoring what the printed
matter doctrine is, and this is also ignoring where is the sign in this claim.

The printed matter doctrine is not limited to claims directed to printed matter.
It applies to claims *involving* printed matter. You just can't escape the
printed matter doctrine by saying the claim is not directed to the printed
matter but to a machine.

Think about it. A machine with labels painted on it is clearly a machine. You
don't get to patent an old machine because of new labels without doing more than
a paint job. There are printed matter cases saying that.

And the referent is not the printing press. The printed material doesn't talk
about the printing press. The claim does, but the sign in this invention is not
the claim. The sign is the printed book. The meaning of the content of the book
is not the printing press.

You can go in a bookstore and ask for a book describing hobbits traveling in
faraway countries to destroy an evil ring. They will bring you a copy of The
Lord of the Rings. This is a reversal of the normal semantical relationship. You
use the content of the book to describe the physical stack paper with marks of
ink. That doesn't make the book a referent of its own text. The book is still a
sign-vehicle. When identifying a referent you need to take the reversal of the
semantical relationship into account. This is the error discussed in section

It is funny that you argue the referent is the printing press because this is
what the claim is describing. I can imagine the Federal Circuit arguing
precisely that because, in effect, this is what they are currently doing with
software patents. I can't imagine the Supreme Court going along with this
nonsense once it is brought to their attention.

This is precisely the point of the printing press argument. It makes the
absurdity apparent. If one tries to argue the configured printing press is
indeed patentable as you did, the case won't survive a Supreme Court challenge.
I think there is also hope that even the Federal Circuit will fear going this

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I still don't find printed matter in claims 1 and 2
Authored by: macliam on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 09:24 PM EDT

Maybe the printed matter doctrine might invalidate the methods claims. But I don't see how the apparatus claims (to the configured printing press), if satisfying the 'utility' requirement, could possibly be patent-ineligible, under patent law as I understand that patent law is currently applied in all areas of technology. In patent prosecution and litigation, the claims are what matter. Infringement is determined with respect to individual claims, that have to stand in their own right. I claim the printing press. The printing press is a machine. As Judge Newman would say (and did say during the CLS v. Alice oral argument with regard to the 'system' under discussion there), if the printing press is patent-eligible, as a machine, it cannot cease to be patent-eligible, on account of being configured in some specific fashion. If the printing press itself is patent-eligible (and therefore qualifies to be considered for novelty and non-obviousness under sections 102 and 103), then so is the configured printing press. Moreover configuring a printing press for printing surely cannot 'print' the text on the machine. If the text is printed on the printing press simply by configuring the printing press for printing, what printing device prints the text on the printing press in the course of configuring the printing press to print The Law of the Rings. And what meta-printing device prints that text on the printing device that prints it on the printing press so that it can be printed on the paper? Configuring a machine must surely be more significant for purposes of claim differentiation and claim limitation than merely sticking a label on a machine?

I have a recollection that Judge Rich said, 'Look to the invention'. But, for Judge Rich, the 'invention' was not what you or I would consider to be the true invention, assuming there was one. For Judge Rich, the invention was synonymous with what is claimed. And I understand that is a basic principle of current patent law. Say I added claims 1 and 2 to a specification going into excruciating mechanical detail about how the printing press was constructed, and how it was configured? How would you argue for the existence of the printed text, in order to invalidate the claims under the printed matter doctrine, when the printed book does not appear in either the claims or the specification? And if you can't find the printed book, or anything that specifically refers to the meaning of the text, where or what is the referent?

The PTO would presumably reject claims 1 and 2 for lack of 'utility'.

Well hopefully, once the Federal Circuit has finished with CLS v. Alice, all the arguments will be flushed out, the Supreme Court will grant certiori, refute the arguments that will be put forward by Rader, Newman et al., and give us a sensible per curiam opinion, hopefully unanimous, that will help to form the foundation of a sensible and workable Section 101 jurisprudence.

[ 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 )