For the fourth year in a row, the ABA Journal has selected Patently-O as one of the top 100 legal blogs (Blawgs). The list offers a nice way to find out about other high quality blogs you may have missed. For the first time, the list includes a sub-category of IP-focused legal blogs. Others in the category include the TTABlog (John Welch), TechDirt (Mike Masnick), IPWatchdog (Gene Quinn), IPKat (Jeremy Phillips and team), and Copyrights & Campaigns (Ben Sheffner). Of course, there is a quite long list of very good IP-focused legal blogs that should have made the list.
The annual listing includes a popularity contest and I would appreciate your vote. (A quick registration is required to vote.)
Notes:
- Vote here. (Thanks!)
Come on now you all know that K T was the beginning. You all know JRW was there to. And then DT. and then RL claiming to CK that he was the first one to do a Trademark. and it was a fake Facsimile. And then one by one they were all helped I want my FREEDOM!
I know that when I was called by D.T. to sign a notice I was told to tear up earlier it was him that was involved along with J.W. And then the Whaler was there to catch the Fish.
I want my FREEDOM. The Patent(s) mine!
Then why doesn’t he come out and fight like a Man? We know that will never happen. He’s been hiding behind his little man for so long I will now call him shadow.
You see I know that a person (AHEM) kept telling me I was making no sense.
Sarah, when you mentioned a “special worm” we knew exactly who you were talking about.
You see I know that a person (AHEM) kept telling me I was making no sense. So it was a simple deduction as to whommmmm was the culprit. I ain’t STOOOOPIDDD. To whom it soes concern I told you that already. And if you don’t know who I am referring to? Go back and check each thread. but then again it may have been erased.
A week or so ago I contacted for some help. Haven’t heard back as of yet though.
And I keep my trusty wormed Laptop by my side for Legal reasons. Gotta protect myself, YAH KNOW.
Reminds me of plenty that was removed from Patently O to hide what was really written first on my Computer, and maybe a select few others. A special worm just for me.
Itza those damm trolls trying to rip off the small inventors (like the Eskimo) again.
Aint the first time that Gene’s been smoked by Google:
link to ipwatchdog.com
Well, it looks like IP Blotchblog creamed Patently No in the popularity contest among lawlyers.
Yet, when I google “patent blog,” Patently No comes up as the top search result, while the Blotchblog doesn’t show up until page 8.
They hold a great expectation that their next generation will explore a full career potential and lead a more prosperous and successful life than their own
I have my blessings on the 365 flower buds, they open one day, a beautiful day to bless you.
IANAE, you are still ducking, for the tenth time,
Wow, ten times.
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think this day would come eventually.
IANAE, you are still ducking, for the tenth time, the question regarding your explanation as to how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
Ini adalah artikel bagus untuk dibaca, terima kasih untuk berbagi.
Nine, you say? I thought surely I’d be up to at least ten by now.
Oh well, let me know when it reaches ten I guess.
And thanks for the regular updates. There’s no substitute for good customer service, I always say.
IANAE, you are still ducking, for the ninth time, the question regarding your explanation as to how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
Big time chuckles from 6, the master of fun.
Ohhh, look at them hoof marks on his forehead.
ping you wouldn’t know a fun game if it involved the hottest womans in the world in a pool of jello in a circumstance whereupon you were then bitten upon the arse.
IANAE, you are still ducking, for the eighth time,
Ned’s cousin Joseph would be so proud of this conversation.
– “I didn’t say you couldn’t find me guilty, sir.”
– “When?”
– “When what, sir?”
…
– “When didn’t you say we couldn’t find you guilty?”
– “Late last night in the latrine, sir.”
– “Is that the only time you didn’t say it?”
– “No, sir. I always didn’t say you couldn’t find me guilty, sir.”
IANAE, you are still ducking, for the eighth time, the question regarding your explanation as to how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
BTW, you are still ducking, for the seventh time,
Oh, is it up to seven already? That’s like a 17% increase since yesterday, isn’t it?
Sounds serious. Be sure to notify me if it goes any higher.
For Mr. Beauregard and IANAE,
See the special basement discount for Sunshine Malcolm’s exponential counting machine with a BIG COMPUTER BRAIN. It includes a phantom answer generator and a See-I-told-you-again module.
Slightly used.
BTW, you are still ducking, for the seventh time, the question regarding your explanation as to how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
Man, it’s sad when the most interesting items on the “Recent Comments” list are the postings by “New Jordans” and “Louis Vitton Outlet.”
I, too, shall remember that happiness day forever.
BTW, you are still ducking, for the sixth time,
Well, I’ve answered it more than six times, so I think I’m still ahead of the game.
And since you’re clearly incapable of reading what I’ve repeatedly posted before, I don’t see why I should expect different results if I post it again.
But if you enjoy counting past six, by all means keep asking.
Duck, duck,… goose
A game where the players run around in circles.
Oh, how droll…
“BTW, you are still ducking,”
GOOSE!
“Any sane person who has read anything else I’ve ever posted anywhere would have realized that this is typical.”
There, fixed it for you.
BTW, you are still ducking, for the sixth time, the question regarding your explanation as to how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
“Any sane person who has read anything else I’ve ever posted anywhere would have realized that this was a simple typographical error, and moved on.”
Sorry my main man – that be the effects of carpet bombing. No ones can tell what ya gonna really be sayin next.
Course, that does beg the question from Dim Light – why be the “disk in a box” claims invalid.
I have to explain to you the problem with suing someone for infringing an invalid claim?
Any sane person who has read anything else I’ve ever posted anywhere would have realized that this was a simple typographical error, and moved on.
“I have to explain to you the problem with suing someone for infringing a valid claim?”
W
T
F
“Read an old post if you like.”
Just cut and paste from that old post. Just explain how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry, and just focus on that issue alone.
How many times have you ducked the question? Four or five already?? This is easy to keep up, since I’ll just be cutting and pasting as well, but I’ll keep a running track as to how many times you’ve ducked the question.
New Light — thanks for pointing out many of the distortions presented by IANAE.
He has a point of view that he wants to spread and he’ll stop at nothing to spread his distortions of the law and the facts.
He is on the wrong side of the law, and he knows it.
“the PTO suspiciously agrees with you on this point and has for the past decade and a half”
Contrary to a point underlying much of your analysis, the “PTO” is not a monolith. The USPTO of today is very different than the USPTO of 2 years ago, which is very different than the USPTO before Dudas took over, which is very different than the USPTO when Lowry was decided, and the USPTO caved on Beauregard. Different people have been in power with a varied opinion of what constitutes statutory subject matter and what does not.
If you want evidence of Beauregard claims being rejected, just look at a few BPAI decisions (easy seach engine on the USPTO website to use) — they are been appealed and some of the rejections are being affirmed. They are using different tactics to reject them, but the reject them nonetheless. Thus, the impetus to reject is there, so why wouldn’t anybody at the USPTO use this seemingly solid rationale that you’ve been espousing?
“who hasn’t had the courage to challenge this supposed PTO policy by appealing to the Federal Circuit. It only takes one.”
No need, the law stands on my side, and fixing Beauregard claims based upon the USPTO’s current take on them is easy. I would be more than happy to challenge the USPTO’s current policy on Beauregard claims, but it is far less expensive for the client to make the minor modifications than it is to take a case to the Federal Circuit.
cut and paste from an old post if you like.
Read an old post if you like.
“I answered it several times. If you want to call it ‘dodging’ that I don’t repeat my answer in every post, go right ahead.”
Repeat it just one more time … cut and paste from an old post if you like. Just explain how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry. Just focus on that alone.
I’ll be waiting ………..
Are you sure they caught the Wiki Link guy fake IANAE?
“There’s a big difference between intending a factual consequence and intending a legal consequence. I should have thought this would be obvious to anyone who has attended the first year of law school, but apparently two of you are still mulling it over.”
I lulzed.
I like the one about shooting someone in the head, but not to murder them.
Why, thank you, fake sarah.
If you shoot someone in the head on purpose, death is a factual consequence that you probably intend. Murder is a legal consequence that you probably don’t intend. You might not even be aware of what exactly the law defines as murder. You probably wouldn’t act differently if the law against murder were repealed. Even if you purposely carry out the actus reus for murder and you know you have the mens rea for murder, you probably don’t intend for the legal consequences to result, and you’d rather they didn’t.
Besides, there are a variety of situations wherein you might shoot someone in the head (even on purpose) but not even think you’re committing murder. In a self-defense situation, you’d probably be right. In a euthanasia situation, you’d probably be wrong. If you thought the guy’s skull was bulletproof, you’d probably get a free white coat with extra-long sleeves.
There’s a big difference between intending a factual consequence and intending a legal consequence. I should have thought this would be obvious to anyone who has attended the first year of law school, but apparently two of you are still mulling it over.
Do you remember when IANAE threatened me wit being arrested? Someone one else said that to me in writing. Connection? I think so.
I apologize for the ranting nature of this post,
If it makes you feel any better, I took no pleasure in attempting to read it.
I realize that IANAE would have everyone believe that Beauregard claims are no more than words on the outside of a coffee mug, but that simply is not a factual statement. As anyone in the art knows (and surely, this is the PHOSITA baseline), the particular relationship is functional.
A person skilled in the art would find it relatively simple to design a coffee mug with writing on the outside that infringes any Beauregard claim.
You might want to go in to slightly more detail as to what you think the big difference is.
If there were indeed no functional relationship between the program and the readable medium, there could not be any functional relationship between the medium and the computer. Exclaiming that the relationship is with the computer is only a misdirection.
There’s no functional relationship between the poem and the mug, but there could still be a functional relationship between the poem/mug and the reader.
The functional relationship between the mug and the coffee inside doesn’t depend on the nature of the coffee either (it’s purely a storage function), but a mug of coffee certainly has a functional effect on the person to whom the mug outputs the coffee.
In an analogy, inventions claiming new treads on tires need not claim a car even if the functionality of the new tire treads are only realized when the tires are used with a car.
We’ve discussed tires before, but I’m sure you think you’re clever for raising this seemingly unassailable argument.
The functionality of the tire treads changes how the tire interacts with whatever surface it’s on. It doesn’t need the car, or even the wheel, to do that. And that’s not even considering that tire treads are claimed structurally. A Beauregard tire tread claim would be something like “a tire having treads formed thereon, the treads being configured to produce (specified traction characteristics) upon interaction with a road surface”, and would be quickly rejected by any examiner. What do you suppose a structural software claim would look like?
More sophistry: To my comment “There is a real difference between mere written matter and something configured to execute. ”
Okay, so what do the words “configured to execute” mean to you? Does it mean something other than instructions? Does it mean that the program runs itself automatically? You’re the one supposedly having the honest conversation here, so be a good lexicographer and explain yourself.
The distortion of actual history was done by IANAE, not the Office.
I don’t distort the actual history. We all agree on what the PTO historically did. All I said was that they erred in law in doing so, and squandered a perfect opportunity to ask the opinions of three legal experts.
you will have to share with the rest of us why this there is anything wrong with suing someone who infringes in this manner.
I have to explain to you the problem with suing someone for infringing a valid claim? I’m not sure I could do that without provoking another well-meaning rant.
I like the one about shooting someone in the head, but not to murder them.
Me too. I suppose that if you’re properly licensed, you could call it “surgery.”
I like the one about shooting someone in the head, but not to murder them.
Finally:
In the midst of what amounts to a large pile of misdirection in reply, IANAE then continues with “because the whole point of Beauregard is that you can sue someone who only sells a disk in a box.” Realizing this is a tangent from the original point (and that original point has not been addressed face to face as it were) we can explore this tangent on its own merits.
What point here so distresses you IANAE, that you feel compelled to so slyly try to denigrate someone protecting their invention in this manner? I am sure that your attempt at belittling the “disk in a box” appears clever to you, but you will have to share with the rest of us why this there is anything wrong with suing someone who infringes in this manner.
Have at it IANAE, If you want to respond in a straight forward manner we can attempt to have a conversation. If you want to twist and manipulate, please continue the “conversation” on your own.
and:
More sophistry: To my comment “There is a real difference between mere written matter and something configured to execute. ” IANAE attempts to once again redefine by saying “Okay, so what’s written is instructions”. There is a pathological restating of every fact pattern presented. IANAE, it would help if you answered without redefining the positions made. If you stayed with the actual arguments and did not try to manipulate them, we can make some progress. I would be truly amazed if you attempted an answer without manipulation. I am afraid that you really do not want to make progress and want to continue to argue your highly selected phrasing, because otherwise, your philosophy would fail. Constantly rephrasing my position fools no one.
The dishonesty continues when IANAE parses my words and misapplies them: “but this distorts that actual history in which the Patent Office did apply the test and did decide for itself” to which IANAE responds to his alteration of my words: “Isn’t that what I said?”. The distortion of actual history was done by IANAE, not the Office. So to answer your question, no, that (my statement) isn’t what you said. With this distortion you have simply evaded my point altogether. Another non-answer that objective readers can readily identify. Why do you have such a difficult time when it comes to not distorting other people’s points?
Still more:
Addressing IANAE’s comment of “Now, where’s the functional relationship? It’s not with the readable medium. It’s with the computer.” This false statement is an attempt at confusion. If there were indeed no functional relationship between the program and the readable medium, there could not be any functional relationship between the medium and the computer. Exclaiming that the relationship is with the computer is only a misdirection. Trying to differentiate functional relationships is not required. There are functional relationships between the program and the medium as well as between the medium and the computer. In an analogy, inventions claiming new treads on tires need not claim a car even if the functionality of the new tire treads are only realized when the tires are used with a car. The use by IANAE of language such as “deliberately unclaimed” simply misdirects a reader away from the point that a functional relationship exists and thus the printed matter doctrine cannot rule out Beauregard claims.
More:
In his reply at 6:01 PM, IANAE starts out of the blocks twisting the facts by stating “ Beauregard claims are along the lines of “instructions stored on a readable medium, the instructions for doing (things)”. We can agree on that, right?” The answer is no, the restatement here is not acceptable as it is not accurate. The twist may be subtle, but none-the-less real. IANAE’s restatement does not represent a Beauregard claim. The passive “stored” and the equally passive “for doing” misrepresent the actual Beauregard claim form. I realize that IANAE would have everyone believe that Beauregard claims are no more than words on the outside of a coffee mug, but that simply is not a factual statement. As anyone in the art knows (and surely, this is the PHOSITA baseline), the particular relationship is functional. Once IANAE accepts this, the rest of his position falls away.
I apologize for the ranting nature of this post, but IANAE refuses to have an honest conversation.
While IANAE apologies for any semblance to either Mr Beauregard or 6, I find that he still is quite willing to describe black as white when it comes to actually acknowledging facts, law and arguments on this topic.
I do not understand why he persists as anyone looking with any objectivity will see his prevarications and recognize his sophistry. I can only reason that actually accepting the facts would mean that he would need to alter his untenable position. I suppose that the reason why IANAE cannot be straightforward is because he has more invested in his position than meets the eye. His trouble in actually answering the points made, makes obvious that he does not have answers. This type of twisting dialogue is neither cute nor clever. It is frustrating to try to hold a normal conversation when IANAE does not (or cannot) answer directly or honestly.
I see you dodged the question as to how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
I answered it several times. If you want to call it “dodging” that I don’t repeat my answer in every post, go right ahead.
They reject Beauregard claims all the time.
But they back down pretty quick, right? That’s what you said, right? So basically they allow Beauregard claims all the time.
This policy is a top-down driven policy, and you cannot reasonably expect me to believe that in 15 years, there hasn’t been at least one person in power at the USPTO that hasn’t wanted to kill Beuaregard [claims].
I can reasonably expect you to produce some sort of evidence to back up your belief that at some point in the past 15 years it has been PTO policy to kill Beauregard claims.
Well, I can’t reasonably expect it. But I can reasonably ask for it.
Let me tell you, there has been, but they still haven’t pulled the trigger. Why is that?
Probably because, for all your accusations of me being in league with the PTO, the PTO suspiciously agrees with you on this point and has for the past decade and a half.
Either that, or you’re one of those fluffy kitties who hasn’t had the courage to challenge this supposed PTO policy by appealing to the Federal Circuit. It only takes one, remember? You could be that hero.
“Let me tell you, there has been, but they still haven’t pulled the trigger. Why is that?”
No balls?
“All it takes is 1 defendant or the USPTO feeling frisky, but that hasn’t happened in 15 years.”
How long did it take for Bilski to arise? 15 also? I’ve quite forgotten the date of SS.
“why hasn’t the USPTO taken the seemingly obvious step of challenging all Beauregard claims, no matter how written?”
If I had to guess, they’re doing that for the lulz. They want to get a full 20 years of filings in so that they can kill the maximum amount of patents while at the same time having collected fees for them.
I know I lulzed.
“They’re not going to make extra rejections on partial claim sets just for the fun of it. ”
Most of em anyway 🙂
“I have. Several times.”
I see you dodged the question as to how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
“And they haven’t rejected any Beauregard claims because they didn’t like the language, have they?”
They reject Beauregard claims all the time. Again, do you really practice in this art?
“requiring that the examiner do extra work for no extra pay”
Examiners do that ALL THE FING time because that is what they are told to do. Do you practice patent law at all before the USPTO? or are you some litigator or professor who has no clue as to what goes on at the USPTO?
FYI — the USPTO policy on 101 issues changes all the FING time (multiple times a year). You would know this had you been practicing in the art. This policy is a top-down driven policy, and you cannot reasonably expect me to believe that in 15 years, there hasn’t been at least one person in power at the USPTO that hasn’t wanted to kill Beuaregard kills.
Let me tell you, there has been, but they still haven’t pulled the trigger. Why is that?
All it takes is 1 defendant or the USPTO feeling frisky, but that hasn’t happened in 15 years.
A defendant can only raise the issue if he’s sued or threatened, and will only raise the issue if it benefits him to do so.
Who gets sued on Beauregard claims? Only software companies. The entire claim format exists for the sole purpose of suing software companies.
And even if a defendant really felt strongly about invalidating Beauregard claims, he wouldn’t bother if there were non-Beauregard claims asserted in the same action, because it would cost money for no benefit.
Same goes for an examiner. If he has a Beauregard claim and a method claim before him, he can reject only the Beauregard claim, but then he’ll still have to think of some other reason to reject the method claim, which will apply just as well to the Beauregard claim, and he doesn’t get paid extra for spending extra time to set out the Beauregard rejection that is contrary to his employer’s policy anyway.
The doctrine doesn’t apply to the computer field.
Dicta. And wrong in law. And axiomatically wrong, because ink on paper is a kind of computer-readable medium.
I’m not buying your claim.
Spoken like a true examiner.
It pays to read the cases, which you haven’t.
I have. Several times. All of it, not just the part I wanted to see. Give that a try sometime.
First, the Federal Circuit gives a blatant warning that they don’t like the printed matter doctrine.
Neither do I, on the facts of Lowry. Give them a coffee mug with a poem on it, and I assure you the Federal Circuit will have a second honeymoon with the doctrine. The only question is where to draw the line, and Lowry makes it pretty clear that even the old pre-Lowry line permits Lowry and excludes the mug.
If you are a patent attorney, you don’t practice in the software arts, do you? First, examiners do what they are told, not what they think is right
Don’t you think In re Beauregard is a pretty clear message to examiners that what they’re told is to permit claims in Beauregard format?
Also, examiners don’t do what they’re told. They do what they’re paid to do, just like everyone else. They’re not going to make extra rejections on partial claim sets just for the fun of it. They’re paid by the job, and one rejection applicable to all the claims is the quickest way (other than allowance) to do the job.
I’ve been told many, many times by examiners, while discussing 101 rejections, that the examiner reject the claims, not because they believe the claims should be rejected, but because some QAS or SPE doesn’t like the language.
And they haven’t rejected any Beauregard claims because they didn’t like the language, have they? Maybe they’ve been told to like that particular language.
So again, I ask, given this institutional hostility by the USPTO towards software-related patent applications (i.e., applications with every intention of being practiced on a computer, unlike Bilski and other pure business methods), why hasn’t the USPTO taken the seemingly obvious step of challenging all Beauregard claims, no matter how written?
Because the USPTO has obviously decided that they think Beauregard claims are okay. Not all 101 rejections are the same, you know.
Ultimately, some applicant will take the case to the Federal Circuit – heck, Bilski and Nuitjen took their claims to the Federal Circuit. Tell me, why hasn’t it happened these last 15 years?
Because the claim has to be rejected on that basis first (contrary to PTO policy these past 15 years, and requiring that the examiner do extra work for no extra pay), and the rejection sustained by the Board (contrary to PTO policy these past 15 years), without any insurmountable rejection on other grounds in the same case that would render the appeal moot, and furthermore it has to be worth the applicant’s time and money to pursue the appeal. Also, given the current BPAI backlog, even if it happened in the past 5 years you probably wouldn’t know it yet.
“Of course it stands on questionable legal and logical footing.”
IANAE FAIL #1 The comment was directed to the doctrine itself, not the particular rejection, as noted by the Federal Circuit “[s]tanding alone, the description of an element of the invention as printed matter tells nothing about the differences between the invention and the prior art or about whether that invention was suggested by the prior art.”
“Yes, when you extend the doctrine to the computer field you need to be mindful of additional considerations.”
IANAE FAIL #2 The doctrine doesn’t apply to the computer field.
“I’ve never worked for the USPTO in any capacity.”
You’ve got the USPTO stench all over you, so I’m not buying your claim.
“I’m saying Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry because the test for the printed matter doctrine is not satisfied.”
IANAE FAIL #3 It pays to read the cases, which you haven’t. The Federal Circuit in Gulack applied the printed matter test. They found that based upon the printed matter test, that there was a functional relationship between the digits and the band/ring on the which the digits were imprinted. As a result, the Federal Circuit reversed the rejection (“[w]e reject the board’s conclusion that there is no functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate of the appealed claims”). So explain this to me again, with your tail between your legs crying for yo mama, how “Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry” based upon your reading of the holding of Lowry.
Regardless, let me give you the holding of Lowry in a nutshell. First, the Federal Circuit gives a blatant warning that they don’t like the printed matter doctrine. Second, the Federal Circuit states that “printed matter cases have no factual relevance here” because data structure are not analogous to printed matter. In dicta, Lowry states that even if data structures could be considered analogous to printed matter, the Gulack test is passed.
“And why would an examiner reject a Beauregard claim on a formality that doesn’t apply to co-pending independent claims when he could just as easily write an obviousness rejection that kills them all?”
If you are a patent attorney, you don’t practice in the software arts, do you? First, examiners do what they are told, not what they think is right – I’ve been told many, many times by examiners, while discussing 101 rejections, that the examiner reject the claims, not because they believe the claims should be rejected, but because some QAS or SPE doesn’t like the language.
The impetus to kill any type of claim under 101 comes from above, and it is extremely rare to get a first office action on a software invention that does not include a 101 rejection – which has been the case for several years. So again, I ask, given this institutional hostility by the USPTO towards software-related patent applications (i.e., applications with every intention of being practiced on a computer, unlike Bilski and other pure business methods), why hasn’t the USPTO taken the seemingly obvious step of challenging all Beauregard claims, no matter how written? Ultimately, some applicant will take the case to the Federal Circuit – heck, Bilski and Nuitjen took their claims to the Federal Circuit. Tell me, why hasn’t it happened these last 15 years?
Any explanations?????
“And I didn’t say they’ve been preventing all defendants from raising that issue.”
All it takes is 1 defendant or the USPTO feeling frisky, but that hasn’t happened in 15 years.
BTW, I do agree that many at the USPTO and applicants alike are furry, pettable cats. However, you get that in all walks of life. There are people that will stand up for what they believe and then there are people that will roll over in the face of any opposition. If you are one of the more aggressive types, you won’t know if you are right until your foe is also an aggressive type, and you both fight it out.
Winning against a furry, pettable cat doesn’t prove you are right … it just proves you are more aggressive.
To start with, I do sincerely apologize that my position confirms neither Mr. Beauregard’s conspiracy theories nor 6’s.
[a] ‘printed matter rejection’ under Section 103 stands on questionable legal and logical footing …
Of course it stands on questionable legal and logical footing. The logic and law of the doctrine depend on there being no functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. You don’t need to make new law to make that statement.
Yes, when you extend the doctrine to the computer field you need to be mindful of additional considerations. Yes, the examiner in Lowry ignored those additional considerations. But the facts of Lowry don’t support the broad generalization the Federal Circuit gave, and Beauregard is the perfect counterexample – except that the Federal Circuit never got to hear Beauregard. Beauregard is as perfect an example of the classical printed matter doctrine as you could ever have, only with fancy metal paper.
If you are a lawyer, then you are at the USPTO.
Somebody hasn’t been paying attention. I’ve never worked for the USPTO in any capacity. But that shouldn’t matter anyway, since it doesn’t take more than a year or so of law school to tell dicta from actual reasons.
You are a maroon. The “functional relationship between the data structures and the functioning of the memory itself” is the printed matter test. If you are saying Gulack doesn’t apply because of the functional relationship blah, blah, blah it means you don’t know your a $ $ from your elbow.
I’m saying Gulack doesn’t apply in Lowry because the test for the printed matter doctrine is not satisfied. That’s also what the Federal Circuit said in Lowry. I’m surprised you have such trouble understanding that. Legally speaking, it’s about as new and ground-breaking as throwing out a murder case because the victim testified that he is still alive. Questionable legal and logical footing, indeed.
There have been plenty of regime changes since then, and the Dudas regime was extremely patent hostile — if somebody was inclined to take the issue to the Federal Circuit, they were. However, nobody has. Why is that?
Because being “extremely patent hostile” doesn’t mean being particularly hostile to one specific type of patents. Because it was PTO policy that Beauregard claims were a valid format, so examiners much preferred to issue easy obviousness rejections rather than quibble over claim structure. Because a fair amount of this “extremely patent hostile” business is and has always been in the applicant’s mind, and a whole lot of patents were being issued even at the worst of times.
If sofware companies are so powerful as to prevent Beauregard claims from being challenged at the Federal Circuit by the USPTO,
Who ever said it was a big software company conspiracy? Sure, the software companies probably don’t want their own Beauregard claims invalidated along with the plaintiff’s ones, which means that “so powerful” amounts to either not raising the issue or settling any litigation in which it’s raised. Big deal. Even I have that much power.
But really, why would you spend money challenging the Beauregard-ness of a claim if a non-Beauregard claim in the exact same patent covering the exact same products was also asserted against you? And why would an examiner reject a Beauregard claim on a formality that doesn’t apply to co-pending independent claims when he could just as easily write an obviousness rejection that kills them all?
Dim Light,
That be like beggin to be carpet bombed.
“You must be one of those guys at a bar that all the girls talk about — not because of your looks but because you don’t take “no” for answer — and lord knows, you’ve heard that term stated in so many different ways and forms that you barely notice it anymore.”
I doubt if girls talk about me that way at the bar. They’re usually more interested in making a pass for my privates (like weekend before this past thanksgiving one).
Swear to good, girls are so aggressive up here. Not that I mind that much, but it really does bring into sharp focus what people are talking about when they feel like their personal space is violated.
“In my extensive experience, the Examiners almost always back down. Those that don’t get appealed and then they back down.”
Lulzers. Is that right? Well, do be so kind to show us these appeals. Surely you know of one, in your extensive experience, that isn’t related to one of your own personal cases.
But you’re right, most examiners are pussies. Just like applicants. They don’t take pride in their work, its just a job.
“While you are at it, tell us who shot JFK and what is going on in Area 51. If the best retort you got is to invoke the existence of a secret cabel that keeps all defendents from raising that issue in the Federal courts and then on appeal to the Federal Circuit, then you should go crawl back into AINAE’s hole — he’s going to need the company.”
Lulz. I didn’t say it was a secret cabal. It is no secret that many “high-powered people” have routine contact with those who actually have the power. And I didn’t say they’ve been preventing all defendants from raising that issue. “all defendants” typically are people who 1. can’t afford to appeal or do not wish to or 2. are other software companies with patents of their own that they’d risk annihilating or 3. one of the above, who is being counseled by a typical attorneytard. Besides that, I’m not privy to the contacts made between many corporations etc. when they’re dealing with patent matters in private before they go to trial or in settlement talks. It could very well be a routinely used settlement maker or preventer of suits being filed in the first place for all I know.
“Too late now — you are a lifer”
Idk about that. I almost quit a month ago to take another job. Who knows when another open position, closer to home, will drop into my lap?
Maybe I should do like that young attorney who made forms for people to fight the RIAA in their mass lawlsuit. I’ll make the forms for people to fight B claims. Maybe IANAE would want to get down on that with me.
“That doesn’t mean that Gulaglol was shot down.”
You must be one of those guys at a bar that all the girls talk about — not because of your looks but because you don’t take “no” for answer — and lord knows, you’ve heard that term stated in so many different ways and forms that you barely notice it anymore.
“Repeat it all you want, I’m going to stick my fingers in my ears and yell ‘nah, nah, nah, nah’ until you stop saying bad things.”
There, I fixed it for you.
“At least, that’s been my limited experience so far.”
In my extensive experience, the Examiners almost always back down. Those that don’t get appealed and then they back down.
“Maybe they have been preventing that moreso than you know, on the down low.”
While you are at it, tell us who shot JFK and what is going on in Area 51. If the best retort you got is to invoke the existence of a secret cabel that keeps all defendents from raising that issue in the Federal courts and then on appeal to the Federal Circuit, then you should go crawl back into AINAE’s hole — he’s going to need the company.
You and AINAE are a perfect example as to why you cannot stay at the USPTO for any length of time — your brain just starts rotting from all the inane legal arguments being bandied about in there.
Too late now — you are a lifer.
“xcept that the Court stated that the printed matter doctrine stood on questional legal and logical footing.”
It did in Lowry. So much so that it ultimately failed to be supported.
“However, nobody has. Why is that? Could it be that every person, who both seriously looks at the issue and has a law degree, can easily determine that Lowry clearly allows for Beauregard-style claims and that it is a waste of time/money to argue otherwise.
You need to ask yourself, why does everybody in power disagree with IANAE? It isn’t like the USPTO has been particularly friendly towards software claims the last 5 years. They continue to come up with new ways to reject claims based upon 101 — so much so that it is nearly impossible to draft claims with a reasonable expectation that how you drafted the claims would be OK under 101 3 years later when the first office action is issued. However, despite all this hostility towards software claims, nobody at the USPTO has a big enough set to give the Federal Circuit another chance? Seems odd given the circumstances.
”
Or, it could be that everytime someone is sufficiently challenged they back down and the examiner preparing to ream the application never gets the chance because the claims mysterious vanish into a restriction (with no subsequent DIV filing) or cancellation. At least, that’s been my limited experience so far.
“Why is that? If sofware companies are so powerful as to prevent Beauregard claims from being challenged at the Federal Circuit by the USPTO, why aren’t these software companies powerful enough to prevent all the other shenanigans being pulled by the USPTO regarding 101?”
Maybe they have been preventing that moreso than you know, on the down low. Remember it was a business method, Bilski, that caused the recent uproar.
“You have the burden of proof on this one because you are challenging the status quo …. why haven’t these claims been challenged before the Federal Circuit in the last 15 years?”
Because applicants are pussies and I haven’t personally been sued for infringing an issued one?
“I think that any view that states that the software claims, as typically put forth in Beauregard form, fail to have the requisite “functional relation to the substrate” stretches the discussion beyond credibility.”
In other words your achilles heel is exposed and you’d like desperately for nobody to focus upon it.
I lulzed.
“Functionality is a given fact.”
Functionality with the computer or with the substrate?
“So even granting Gulack as controlling, there is no plausible way for someone to hold Beauregard claims as being non-patentable under the written matter doctrine. ”
Not “non-patentable”, unpatentable under U.S.C 102 or 103.
“For one to simply say that the functional relation that software does have to the substrate, and through the substrate, to the computer doesn’t apply to the facts is just not understanding the facts of this art. ”
No it is understanding them very very well. Better than you.
Also, I loled again.
“(and that is all that is needed), ”
It has to be novel and non-obvious bucko. Everything else in the claim is old (the medium). And so is that “functional relationship”.
“and second that the actual claim is more than the spitting out – the language following the “configured to execute” is that more than spitting out – and claims are required to be read as a whole.”
Which claim are we talking about specifically? I’ve yet to see one with this “configured to execute” langauge.
Even if it is “configured to execute”, what does that have to do with the medium? Nothing.
“If that “new exception” is critical to the holding, which in this case it was, by definition (textbook or otherwise) it is not dicta.”
I believe he was saying that it was not critical. You may have missed that lulz.
“It was precisely on that proper application that the Office realized that it was fighting a losing battle and withdrew.”
I think it was simple bribery. Or some powerful interested party leaning on the Director. You’d be surprised to know how much of this nonsense is decided behind closed doors and with input of a shady nature.
Turns out IANAE said pretty much everything I said anyway. So this is kinda just double.
“Did you? “[a] ‘printed matter rejection’ under Section 103 stands on questionable legal and logical footing … the Board erroneously extended a printed matter rejection under sections 102 and 103 to a new field in this case.” First, the Federal Circuit disparages the use of the printed matter doctrine, and then the Federal Circuit states that the BPAI erroneous extended a printed matter rejection to data structures.”
That doesn’t mean that Gulaglol was shot down.
“It isn’t printed, ergo, it isn’t printed matter.”
Lulzers. Someone needs to familiarize themselves with the actual printed matter doctrine.
“Let me repeat. “[a] ‘printed matter rejection’ under Section 103 stands on questionable legal and logical footing … the Board erroneously extended a printed matter rejection under sections 102 and 103 to a new field in this case.””
Repeat it all you want, you’re just showing that you yourself don’t understand how Lowry’s invention differed from a B claim. Specifically, that it is in a different art. It is in the art of determining the actual structure of the data structures. Which is quite different than the art of writing code and affixing it to a cd.
It’s all very complicated, but I’m confident that if you go read Lowry 4 or 5 times, you’ll start to grasp what you are at present missing.
“The court arrived at the exact same holding by finding that the good old printed matter doctrine didn’t invalidate the claim.”
Except that the Court stated that the printed matter doctrine stood on questional legal and logical footing. When the court begins the analysis with that statement, and then states “the Board erroneously extended a printed matter rejection under sections 102 and 103 to a new field in this case” only a MPEP-fed examiner would consider it to be dicta.
“The PTO got it wrong, and by getting it wrong they deprived the Federal Circuit of the chance to get it right.”
There have been plenty of regime changes since then, and the Dudas regime was extremely patent hostile — if somebody was inclined to take the issue to the Federal Circuit, they were. However, nobody has. Why is that? Could it be that every person, who both seriously looks at the issue and has a law degree, can easily determine that Lowry clearly allows for Beauregard-style claims and that it is a waste of time/money to argue otherwise.
You need to ask yourself, why does everybody in power disagree with IANAE? It isn’t like the USPTO has been particularly friendly towards software claims the last 5 years. They continue to come up with new ways to reject claims based upon 101 — so much so that it is nearly impossible to draft claims with a reasonable expectation that how you drafted the claims would be OK under 101 3 years later when the first office action is issued. However, despite all this hostility towards software claims, nobody at the USPTO has a big enough set to give the Federal Circuit another chance? Seems odd given the circumstances.
Why is that? If sofware companies are so powerful as to prevent Beauregard claims from being challenged at the Federal Circuit by the USPTO, why aren’t these software companies powerful enough to prevent all the other shenanigans being pulled by the USPTO regarding 101?
You have the burden of proof on this one because you are challenging the status quo …. why haven’t these claims been challenged before the Federal Circuit in the last 15 years?
Why?
Why?
Why?
“Shot down? I think you mean, reaffirmed. Quite explicitly. Did you even bother to read the case?”
Did you? “[a] ‘printed matter rejection’ under Section 103 stands on questionable legal and logical footing … the Board erroneously extended a printed matter rejection under sections 102 and 103 to a new field in this case.” First, the Federal Circuit disparages the use of the printed matter doctrine, and then the Federal Circuit states that the BPAI erroneous extended a printed matter rejection to data structures.
“it’s a completely unwarranted generalization” Really, like much of your comments? A computer data structure is not printed matter. It isn’t printed, ergo, it isn’t printed matter.
“As a lawyer, I can confidently tell you that since Lowry applied the old and well-known exception to the printed matter doctrine, the case was already decided based on existing law and any new exception they purported to create to arrive at the same result is the textbook definition of dicta.”
Stop with this “[a]s a lawyer cr$%.” If you are a lawyer, then you are at the USPTO. If you are a lawyer at the USPTO, you are likely with the BPAI – which means your lawyering skills are likely little better than the average ambulance-chasing hack.
“Gulack doesn’t apply to Lowry because, as the Federal Circuit pointed out in Lowry, there is an intimate functional relationship between the data structures and the functioning of the memory itself.”
You are a maroon. The “functional relationship between the data structures and the functioning of the memory itself” is the printed matter test. If you are saying Gulack doesn’t apply because of the functional relationship blah, blah, blah it means you don’t know your a $ $ from your elbow.
“It’s the test from Gulack, that was correctly applied in Lowry, and that never got a chance to be correctly applied in Beauregard. No court has ever shot it down, unless you can provide an authority to the contrary.”
Let me repeat. “[a] ‘printed matter rejection’ under Section 103 stands on questionable legal and logical footing … the Board erroneously extended a printed matter rejection under sections 102 and 103 to a new field in this case.”
Go crawl back into your hole and stop relying upon the MPEP for your analysis.
Also, please read the frigg’n case: digital-law-online.info/cases/32PQ2D1031.htm
Congrats on making the ABA’s top 100, and thank you for linking to the list of IP/patent law blogs. I’m glad that IP is starting to get the attention that it deserves.
Whether Mr. Beauregard’s viewpoint of Gulack as controlling is in fact correct or not, I think that any view that states that the software claims, as typically put forth in Beauregard form, fail to have the requisite “functional relation to the substrate” stretches the discussion beyond credibility.
Beauregard claims are along the lines of “instructions stored on a readable medium, the instructions for doing (things)”. We can agree on that, right?
Now, what’s the substrate? To my mind, it can only be the readable medium. The information isn’t written on anything else, and nothing else structural is claimed.
Now, where’s the functional relationship? It’s not with the readable medium. It’s with the computer. And the computer is deliberately unclaimed, because the whole point of Beauregard is that you can sue someone who only sells a disk in a box.
There is a real difference between mere written matter and something configured to execute.
Okay, so what’s written is instructions. Information that specifies to the reader that certain things are to be done. Just like a recipe in a cookbook. Just like a whimsical proverb on a coffee mug. Now, if you want to interpret Beauregard claims as a matter of law to be limited to self-executing instructions, that automatically run when you insert the medium into the computer, I think you’ll find you’ve created a trivial design-around without addressing the real problem that the computer still isn’t the substrate.
because this ignores the very real fact that first this spitting out itself is is a functional relationship (and that is all that is needed),
No, that’s not all that is needed. Outputting the information is not functionally related to the information. Outputting the information is the exact same thing a piece of paper does when you look at it. It’s what the medium was configured to do even before the software was written to it. The medium doesn’t know or care what the information is, and it acts exactly the same no matter what program is on it, or even if it’s blank. It responds to read commands from the computer, and that’s it.
If you don’t mind a tangent to a tangent (and I’m sure you do), getting the software to and from the medium is extra-solution activity. Getting itself read off the medium is not the function of the software, and it’s nothing to do with the invention.
If that “new exception” is critical to the holding, which in this case it was, by definition (textbook or otherwise) it is not dicta.
Ah, but it wasn’t “critical to the holding”. The court arrived at the exact same holding by finding that the good old printed matter doctrine didn’t invalidate the claim. Take out all that talk about the doctrine not applying to computers, and the case still makes perfect logical sense while arriving at the exact same result. That’s dicta.
but this distorts that actual history in which the Patent Office did apply the test and did decide for itself.
Isn’t that what I said? The PTO decided for itself instead of asking the people whose job it is to tell the PTO what the law is. The PTO got it wrong, and by getting it wrong they deprived the Federal Circuit of the chance to get it right.
I have not had success in the past trying to hold a conversation with IANAE, and so I write these comments with only a small hope of some meaningful reply this time. Quite frankly, I don’t see how a reply could have substance given the misstatements made and the past history of my interactions.
In not a small sense, I think the entire Gulack as controlling authority is a red herring. Whether Mr. Beauregard’s viewpoint of Gulack as controlling is in fact correct or not, I think that any view that states that the software claims, as typically put forth in Beauregard form, fail to have the requisite “functional relation to the substrate” stretches the discussion beyond credibility. There is a real difference between mere written matter and something configured to execute. Functionality is a given fact. You cannot not apply that fact. So even granting Gulack as controlling, there is no plausible way for someone to hold Beauregard claims as being non-patentable under the written matter doctrine.
For one to simply say that the functional relation that software does have to the substrate, and through the substrate, to the computer doesn’t apply to the facts is just not understanding the facts of this art. It is a gross misdirection to merely claim that “the memory does nothing more than store the information and spit it out when requested”, because this ignores the very real fact that first this spitting out itself is is a functional relationship (and that is all that is needed), and second that the actual claim is more than the spitting out – the language following the “configured to execute” is that more than spitting out – and claims are required to be read as a whole.
Misrepresentation of fact is joined by misrepresentation of law. As I read this thread and watched it unravel in the usual manner, I am struck by only what I can label as sheer audacity of some to misrepresent a court’s holding and redefine “dicta.” I really take umbrage at the statement “ As a lawyer, I can confidently tell you that since Lowry applied the old and well-known exception to the printed matter doctrine, the case was already decided based on existing law and any new exception they purported to create to arrive at the same result is the textbook definition of dicta.” Mainly because it is false, and because it is advanced under the guise that it must be true, because a lawyer is saying so. If that “new exception” is critical to the holding, which in this case it was, by definition (textbook or otherwise) it is not dicta.
IANAE, you are free to not like the holding of the case, but you are not free to misrepresent what the holding is. Granted, we are merely conversing on a blog, but this is just too flagrant to overlook and any credibility to your position vanishes when your argument follows such a false style.
You further represent that there was no chance for a “correct decision” and that “the test never [had] a chance to be correctly applied”; but this distorts that actual history in which the Patent Office did apply the test and did decide for itself. It was precisely on that proper application that the Office realized that it was fighting a losing battle and withdrew. It doesn’t take a court’s authority beyond that already presented. It is just not credible to re-paint history based on how you want the law to read.
Congrats on making the ABA’a top 100, and thank you for linking to the list of IP/patent law blogs. I’m’ glad that IP is starting to get the attention that it deserves.
“and it has been for a very long time.”
I wouldn’t say that exactly…
The USSC goes about its daily business knocking off CAFC precedent from much further back than that. Although, Lowry is fairly here to stay I’d say.
“Regardless, all your “functional relationship to the substrate” talking is legally-unsupported blathering. That is a printed matter test, which has been shot down by the Federal Circuit 15 years ago.”
Shot down? I think you mean, reaffirmed. Quite explicitly. Did you even bother to read the case?
“What you (and many on the BPAI) get hung up”
Nah, they’re just hung up on, if anything, is not understanding what is being claimed. Admittedly, that is easy to misunderstand.
BTW – what is it about “[t]hey are not analogous to printed matter” that has you confused?
The bit about how they’re not analogous to printed matter because they’re functionally related to the substrate by changing how data is stored and accessed in the memory itself (which is an exception to the doctrine even for paper substrates), and how it’s a completely unwarranted generalization (and therefore dicta) that a printed matter exemption would apply indiscriminately to all software.
Wave your hands in the air all you want, but Lowry is controlling law, and it has been for a very long time.
Yes, it’s controlling law that doesn’t apply on the facts.
Your assertion that the language was “dicta at best” shows you aren’t very good at reading case law – understandable for an examiner.
Huh. Maybe that’s why the PTO mistakenly thought Lowry applied in Beauregard. They’re all a bunch of examiners.
As a lawyer, I can confidently tell you that since Lowry applied the old and well-known exception to the printed matter doctrine, the case was already decided based on existing law and any new exception they purported to create to arrive at the same result is the textbook definition of dicta.
It’s a shame about Beauregard, really. That would have been a perfect case to refocus the Federal Circuit on the doctrine and make the correct decision in a case that actually depended on it.
The basis for the BPAI’s rejection was that it was printed matter and the BPAI relied upon Gulack. When the Federal Circuit explicitly says Gulack doesn’t apply and then you rely upon Gulack as support for your analysis, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Good luck citing Gulack to the Federal Circuit.
Gulack doesn’t apply to Lowry because, as the Federal Circuit pointed out in Lowry, there is an intimate functional relationship between the data structures and the functioning of the memory itself. That’s not a new exception to the printed matter doctrine, it’s the same old exception that has always existed. It’s the same exception that was applied a century ago in all those printed ticket cases we discussed in another thread. It’s also an exception that clearly doesn’t apply to Beauregard claims, because in a Beauregard claim the memory does nothing more than store the information and spit it out when requested.
Regardless, all your “functional relationship to the substrate” talking is legally-unsupported blathering. That is a printed matter test, which has been shot down by the Federal Circuit 15 years ago.
It’s the test from Gulack, that was correctly applied in Lowry, and that never got a chance to be correctly applied in Beauregard. No court has ever shot it down, unless you can provide an authority to the contrary.
“In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”); accord In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Printed matter cases — try again.
“According to Lowry, the data structures provide tangible benefits: data stored in accordance with the claimed data structures are more easily accessed, stored, and erased. Lowry further notes that, unlike prior art data structures, Lowry’s data structures simultaneously represent complex data accurately and enable powerful nested operations. In short, Lowry’s data structures are physical entities that provide increased efficiency in computer operation. They are not analogous to printed matter.” Note the lack of mention of tying the alleged printed matter (i.e., the data structure) to the memory (i.e., the substrate).
BTW – what is it about “[t]hey are not analogous to printed matter” that has you confused? The “new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate” is the heart of the printed matter test. In re Lowry says (i) data structures are not analogous to printed matter and (ii) “[t]he printed matter cases have no factual relevance here.”
Wave your hands in the air all you want, but Lowry is controlling law, and it has been for a very long time.
Your assertion that the language was “dicta at best” shows you aren’t very good at reading case law – understandable for an examiner. The basis for the BPAI’s rejection was that it was printed matter and the BPAI relied upon Gulack. When the Federal Circuit explicitly says Gulack doesn’t apply and then you rely upon Gulack as support for your analysis, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Good luck citing Gulack to the Federal Circuit.
Regardless, all your “functional relationship to the substrate” talking is legally-unsupported blathering. That is a printed matter test, which has been shot down by the Federal Circuit 15 years ago.
What you (and many on the BPAI) get hung up is the language in Lowry following this qualifier “”[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that data objects and data structures are analogous to printed matter, the Board erred in its reliance on Gulack.” This is dicta because this is not what the Federal Circuit relied upon in reversing the BPAI. It was a statement that EVEN IF data structures are analogous to printed matter, Gulack still doesn’t apply. Read the entire case – not the little snippets that the PTO likes to publish in the MPEP or what the BPAI cites in its decisions.
Another step down the path – can a computer program (the printed matter) – as is typically claimed – not be functionally related to the substrate?
It would seem to be an inherent requirement that the program so claimed must be functionally related, and Iza don’t ever see anyones saying that there is an absence of functional relatin here (well, cepts my main man’s coffee cup examples and I haven’t made up my mind on whether those are meant to be over the top phececious examples, or they be the result of Nazgul feedings).
“Curious about one thing – if the computer program (the printed matter) is “functionally related to the substrate”, what then?”
Then In re Lowry?
Curious about one thing – if the computer program (the printed matter) is “functionally related to the substrate”, what then?
NAL is back – pull the chuckle wagons into a circle.
“In doing so, we do not interpret the board as holding that the printed matter can be ignored because it, by itself, is non-statutory subject matter.”
Right. We don’t ignore it because it’s non-statutory. We ignore it because it’s not functionally related to the substrate.
So I suppose that there is some irony that my aim of calling out that egregious nonsense appears to have set you off.
You really need to get back on whatever medication you’ve recently discontinued, Noise.
Have a nice weekend.
“ I don’t have a particular aim here, other than to… call out some of the more egregious nonsense that appears here ”
Cy Nical,
How nice then, that when I call out the egregious nonsense that appeared here under your pen name, you descend into a cloud of dust, red herrings and name calling. You sir are the noise here – all noise and no signal. If our little conversation approaches an “endless, subject-less argument”, it is only because you are not backing up your opinion as asked. So I suppose that there is some irony that my aim of calling out that egregious nonsense appears to have set you off.
What do you see in that mirror?
To put Gulack into perspective, the very next line from that quote:
“In doing so, we do not interpret the board as holding that the printed matter can be ignored because it, by itself, is non-statutory subject matter.”
Cy Nical: I think you’ve already provided the answer to my question.
To be fair, it was never really in question.
6,
You are late to the game and way, way out of your league.
Actually, he seems to have a decent handle on this one, although Bilski is entirely unnecessary. (This is the same error that got the examiner in trouble in the “financial instrument” application that was allowed.) Nice work, 6 – I’ll give you a B-minus. As easy as this exercise has proved to be, I’m surprised that NoiseWipeA had so much trouble with it.
The answer to your question is up to you.
I think you’ve already provided the answer to my question. Thank you.
6,
You are late to the game and way, way out of your league.
Stay quiet and try not to embarass yourself more than usual.