|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
Hehehe. This such wisdom in this analysis.
The more software
patents are shown to be math while the Supremes never come across a non-math
software patent - the greater the likelihood that the Supremes will eventually
agree that:
since math+computer =
non-patentable
then
software+computer =
non-patentable
We don't even need the Supremes to
get there. All we need is a ruling requiring a form of analysis where, when
starting with abstract idea+computer = non-patentable we always end up with
software+computer = non-patentable. IANAL but I think the approach of judge
Lourie in CLS Bank and of PTAB judge Tierney in SAP America does exactly this.
Gene Quinn seems to agree. :)
If one avoids showing software
is math - then one ends up authoring a patent with such broad language it's
rejected anyway
Exactly. Section 112(f) which is used to ban
functional claiming requires that the patent disclose the structure matching the
means to perform the functions of software. And the Federal Circuit has already
ruled that this structure is the algorithm. Add Mayo to this combination and it
looks very much like what is needed to get your wish granted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|