tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post5757885338915694306..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: PTAB Deems Method for Providing Funds to a Player at a Gaming Facility as Patent-Ineligible Subject MatterKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-79580152203516443832016-05-03T11:36:23.483-04:002016-05-03T11:36:23.483-04:00This decision provides a lesson that the any speci...<i>This decision provides a lesson that the any specification should include as much technical detail as possible</i><br />No level of technical detail would have saved this claim -- the invention was not in the "technical details." However, that alone shouldn't disqualify a claim.<br /><br />The problem with the Board's analysis (following on the Examiner's analysis) is that the claim is not "directed to" the "fundamental economic practice of funds transfers." The clams do not simply instruct a practitioner to perform "funds transfers" without anything substantially more.<br /><br />However, this is the mess that SCOTUS left us. They choose not to define "abstract idea" or what it means to be "directed to" an abstract idea. If you don't know what constitutes a claimed directed to an abstract idea, you cannot know what is a claim that constitutes "significantly more" than that abstract idea.<br /><br />There was probably a better "abstract idea" that could have been identified by the Examiner/Board -- however, both were too lazy to figure it out.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com