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
Using metal...catch a mouse :) | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No you don't.
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 structure specified beyond post-solution activity. Patent denied.
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 | # ]

I got your 112(f) right heea:
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 | # ]

Using metal...catch a mouse :)
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 | # ]

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 )