|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
then I defy you to come up with *anything* that a computer, or even a human
mind, could do that would not qualify as a physical effect.
Your definition places the entire universe of patentable matter at naught, since
abstract and physical are merged into the same unseparated whole; the
unpatentable "abstract" must perforce include every physical thing.
And you aren't in any position to come barging into PJ's place and demand she
answer to you. That's a bit rude.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 29 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
When speaking about prior art it also include the ability to take two
separate prior art items and if it's obvious to combine those two - that meets
the prior art requirements...
Correct?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|