|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|