This is Emma's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Emma's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
"[W]hat the patent calls the 'access control manager' is simply an abstraction that describes the function of controlling access to course materials" You cannot possibly disclose any algorithm without abstraction. Even if you were to set forth the actual code, For example, suppose the first line of code were "OPEN FILE=c:\course_materials.doc" That very line discloses a black box called "OPEN". Even at the machine level where one is setting and clearing individual bit, the idea of a "bit", and the meaning of "set" and "clear" is an abstraction. After all, how many square inches does a bit take up? What shape is it? Does a bit have to be a contiguous area? What magnetic field polarity is associated with "setting" a bit. Is the bit even magnetic, or can it be optical? These and other details are blithely abstracted away just by saying "bit".
1 reply
I don't see why FTF and FTI is even an issue. This case is about whether a named inventor actually contributed to conception.
1 reply
BRI is that of the claim, not the individual words of the claim. Trouble often arises when the examiner fixates on a particular word and applies the BRI to that word.
1 reply
Something new to confess to the priest. I wonder how many "Hail Mary"'s worth of penance a broadening reissue might draw, Might I earn an indulgence by making a narrowing amendment?
Toggle Commented Jul 10, 2009 on The Pope on Patents at Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)
1 reply
I don't think "focus of activity" is particularly unclear. When you qualify for points, you used to get redirected to another party's site. The invention is this no longer happens. The killer, as Stein points out, is trying to use a means element without showing corresponding structure. There is a case out there that says in software claims, one correspnding structure is an algorithm but I can't find it right now.
1 reply