tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post8992499281789497701..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Enfish Mayo Step One Inquiry Fails to Save Claims Directed to Assigning Classification Data to Digital Images From Being Deemed an Abstract IdeaKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-80521698582034527662016-05-24T02:14:41.235-04:002016-05-24T02:14:41.235-04:00Unexplored or a different legal system which sees ...Unexplored or a different legal system which sees issues through another looking glass? I believe there's case law to help analyse your proffered hypo, but the US, of course, uses different terms and tools. I'd even say its more unpredictable from application to enforcement, especially now in the software arts.Sam Bergstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04455443535067698767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-68216961305682452962016-05-23T14:16:14.214-04:002016-05-23T14:16:14.214-04:00I guess the "technical detail and context&quo...I guess the "technical detail and context" issues are why 101 rejections, in my experience, rarely come up in the signal-processing arts (or at least comparably rare vis-a-vis other technical arts). <br /><br />Applications in this field tend to have at least a few equations showing what's going on beyond high-level schematic figures and are tied to very particular technical contexts (e.g., voice, video, image, and audio coding and associated hardware).Sam Bergstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04455443535067698767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-64573615215529459562016-05-23T14:10:13.162-04:002016-05-23T14:10:13.162-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Sam Bergstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04455443535067698767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-8485716991309848332016-05-19T17:26:52.055-04:002016-05-19T17:26:52.055-04:00Thanks for that, Tyler Benson. Being from Europe, ...Thanks for that, Tyler Benson. Being from Europe, I (MaxDrei) am keen to know what is the ambit of "improving the performance of a computer". You mention improvements in allocating data within a memory structure, and I'm wondering whether that would be accepted as something that improves the computer.<br /><br />Notwithstanding any equivalence between hardware and software, it seems to me that there is a difference between improving a computer and improving a app running on the computer (by re-writing some code to eliminate a bug, for example).<br /><br />You can improve the performance of a diesel engine by using better diesel fuel. It seems to me you haven't made a better engine, just a better fuel. Now who cares whether it is the fuel or the engine because both are patentable. At least in Europe though, there might be a difference in patentability. depending whether you have improved the computer or merely de-bugged a piece of app software.<br /><br />I guess this is all still territory as yet unexplored in the courts. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-24903922497210823992016-05-19T11:52:46.012-04:002016-05-19T11:52:46.012-04:00Thank you for the question, MaxDrei.
Regarding in...Thank you for the question, MaxDrei.<br /><br />Regarding inclusion of technical details - we are starting to see quite a few decisions where the courts, PTAB, and/or examiners are focusing on mere generic functional descriptions of the components described within the specification when making these types of rejections. <br /><br />Thus, for these types of cases, one should include descriptions of how the invention improves the performance of the computer, include as many flow diagrams as possible, discuss the allocation of data within a memory structure (if possible), etc. <br /><br />Additionally, avoid using language that describes the components as "conventional" or "standard," which invites these types of rejections since it provides a road map to the argument that the components are "well-understood, conventional, and routine" that are merely performing generic functionality. <br /><br />Finally, it appears that some courts latch onto disparagement of the prior art; however, this may invite unintended consequences down the road. Tyson Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18336982689048990753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-26197020873328048802016-05-18T12:04:37.016-04:002016-05-18T12:04:37.016-04:00MaxDrei here. Karen, you write:
"...this de...MaxDrei here. Karen, you write:<br /><br /> "...this decision provides a lesson that the any specification should include as much technical detail as possible".<br /><br />So what's new for drafters? When (if ever) was this not the rule? And are all "details" the same or are some "details" more equal than others? My old boss, 30 years ago, used to bill in proportion to the number of pages in the drafted work product. When do "details" fall to the level of mere padding? <br /><br />Do you see any merit in the European position, that in the claims you define the invention as a combination of technical features whereas, in the specification, you describe what the invention does, in terms of what technical effects the claimed feature combination delivers. So, when visualising "detail", do you draw any Euro-style vital distinction between what are features and what are effects?<br /><br />In short, what sort of "detail" do you have in mind?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com