|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
You fail.
I know, you are arguing how the law is currently interpreted. You are explaining
how you would work around 112(f) in the current legal context. This is the very
thing the president has ordered to change.
According to WMS GaMing and other similar cases, the algorithm is the structure.
The president wants the claim be limited to the algorithm you disclose in the
specification. You won't be able to argue the disclosed algorithm is just an
example of an embodiment anymore.
Please note that the president doesn't want to make all software unpatentable.
He only wants to eliminate broad functional claiming unsupported by specific
structure according to 112(f).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No you don't. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 02:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
W. Rehnquist, in Diamond v. Diehr: "... insignificant postsolution activity
will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Non-sequiter. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- Disagree. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 03:07 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
Of course, the instructions do not physically exist, meaning
at best they are a process. So only THAT EXACT SEQUENCE of
instructions are the process. If someone has a different
sequence of instructions, those constitute a different
process. Pretty severely limits the scope of your process
patent, it would seem to me.
It would also mean you need to specify the exact sequence of
instructions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
The device includes a processor interconnected with program
memory with instructions, which when executed by the processor allow or cause
the processor to perform the functions recited in the dreaded functional claims
appended
hereto.
Unless you're trying to patent the processor
itself, I don't see how that gets you anywhere. "Using metal, capture a
mouse."
Whereas the gang on Groklaw insists that all
software is obvious [...]
Here you make it very clear how little
you understand the issues. The claim is that software is mathematics,
and therefore a law of nature; a discovery rather than an invention. And
furthermore, something you can at least in theory do in your head or
with pencil and paper. (Though you might have to be a savant to do it in one
human's lifetime, in some cases.)
Now I admit that "software is
mathematics" is a claim that has room for debate, even though I basically agree
with it. But when you claim that we're claiming that "software is obvious", it
becomes obvious that you are playing with straw men.
--- Do
not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|