tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post6025569795885871825..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Another Bilski Decision From the BPAITwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-60771523318016174672009-02-12T11:55:00.000-06:002009-02-12T11:55:00.000-06:00The Board should open a dictionary and 35 USC.The ...The Board should open a dictionary and 35 USC.<BR/><BR/>The word article doesn't require that the item be "physical".<BR/><BR/>35 USC 100 doesn't define --process-- to be restricted to a particular machine or that there be a transformation.<BR/><BR/>35 USC 101 indicates that processes and new and useful improvements thereof are patentable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-79766980074741950142009-02-12T10:30:00.000-06:002009-02-12T10:30:00.000-06:00"But if I say I have invented a machine that can e..."But if I say I have invented a machine that can efficiently invert large matrices (even if the machine's physical form is that of a general purpose computer, and even if the method used by the computer is my clever computational algorithm) then the matter is statutory."<BR/><BR/>It depends on the Board hearing your appeal. Other boards would say "exalts form over substance" and "preempts all uses of the algorithm" and say the matter is nonstatutory. <BR/><BR/>Schrodinger's claims -- we don't know if they are statutory or not until the BPAI looks at them and determines their state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-31354918188461831402009-02-12T09:28:00.000-06:002009-02-12T09:28:00.000-06:00As a mathematician and computer guy, I think I can...As a mathematician and computer guy, I think I can see the distinction. (Or maybe I'm just catching the BPAI disease; I hope not.)<BR/><BR/>Here's an example:<BR/><BR/>As a mathematician, I can devise a clever computational method for inverting a large matrix. (This is a mathematical operation that can get pretty tedious and complex if the matrix is large.) The BPAI says that my computation method, even if it resulted from a brilliant insight, and even if I say the computations can be performed on a computer, is non-statutory.<BR/><BR/>But if I say I have invented a machine that can efficiently invert large matrices (even if the machine's physical form is that of a general purpose computer, and even if the method used by the computer is my clever computational algorithm) then the matter is statutory.<BR/><BR/>So - the machine that implements the method as part of its design is statutory, while the method itself, even if embodied in a machine, is not.<BR/><BR/>Does it all come down to which noun is the subject of the claim sentence?<BR/><BR/><I>Q: As a practical matter, what potentially infringing devices would read on the disallowed Claim 1 that would not also read on the allowed Claim 25?</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-81324510947773872942009-02-12T09:09:00.000-06:002009-02-12T09:09:00.000-06:00The BAPI seems to like the recitation of 'modules'...The BAPI seems to like the recitation of 'modules' or the like, rather than just a processor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-65841996519983935662009-02-12T01:12:00.000-06:002009-02-12T01:12:00.000-06:00Knee-jerk reaction: is this the counterpart case t...Knee-jerk reaction: is this the counterpart case to the transitional "Pension Benefits" case of some years ago at the EPO? I wonder if US patent law is tapping its way along the broad path already explored by disparate, free expression TBA caselaw at the EPO. If so, will it I wonder eventually arrive at the same "technical" destination (although under a different catchword)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com