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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
No you don't. | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No you don't.
Authored by: Wol on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Problem is, if you're being "accurate" as opposed to
"legal", you are still claiming the function and not the algorithm.

The FUNCTION is the transform - "put this in and get that out". The
ALGORITHM is how you *implement* the function, ie FFT is an algorithm, SFT is an
algorithm ... if you don't explicitly claim which algorithm to use, then you are
cliaming functionality, not algorithms.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No you don't.
Authored by: PolR on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 04:30 PM EDT
This is much narrower than claiming a function without an algorithm.

In our comment to the USPTO we have recommended that algorithms must be detailed
up to the point where all remaining functions are in the prior art. Then the
structure for all novel aspects of the invention is specified and the claim is
limited to this structure.

I agree, eliminating functional claiming will not eliminate all broad patents.
It will eliminate claims on functionality that are not limited to a specific
implementation.

[ 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 )