|
|
Author |
Topic: algorithms and Ex Parte Lundgren (Read 11755 times) |
|
dab2d
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
 |
algorithms and Ex Parte Lundgren
« on: Aug 3rd, 2006, 10:16pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
it is my understanding that Ex Parte Lundgren pretty much states that a process need only produce a concrete, tangable and useful to be patentable.
Does this mean that algorithms used in buisness are now patenable? I mean it is a proccess of handleing data to produce a useful result.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2584
|
|
Re: algorithms and Ex Parte Lundgren
« Reply #1 on: Aug 4th, 2006, 2:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Lundgren states, citing another case as evidence of a pre-existing rule (i.e., didn't make new law here), that a process producing a concrete, tangible, and useful result comports with Section 101. Novelty and non-obvious are additional hurdles beyond Section 101 -- Sections 102 and 103, respectively.
In short, the word you use ("patentable") is a loaded term and must be qualified.
Another loaded term, "algorithm", should also be qualified. Algorithms are patentable (if novel and non-obvious) in a tangible context. For example, suppose I just invented the Pythagorean Theorem and that it's novel and non-obvious. I couldn't patent it by itself, but I could patent technical application of the theorem. For example, the ancient Egyptians used the theorem to make "squares" -- to check a corner for 90-degrees. They'd make a triangle with lengths of 3, 4, and 5 of whatever length units. Of course, that's a right triangle and they'd used the square corner as a 90-degree angle reference. I could patent that (assuming the ancient Egyptians didn't already do that and that it was still novel and non-obvious).
As for "in business", using something "in business" neither paves the way for getting a patent nor excludes patent protection. In short, the fact that something is used "in business" is irrelevant to it's being patentable.
Regards.
|
|
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
dab2d
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
|
Re: algorithms and Ex Parte Lundgren
« Reply #2 on: Aug 4th, 2006, 5:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Mr. Ivey,
I apologize using the term Business. As per my last discussion topic, you made it clear there is no such thing as a business patent. As always, I find insight to be most valuable.
Thanks for the response,
Have a great weekend
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
Posts: 2584
|
|
Re: algorithms and Ex Parte Lundgren
« Reply #3 on: Aug 7th, 2006, 1:02pm » |
Quote Modify
|
No need to apologize. It's just that I'm a professional nit-picky language parser and I have to tease out what words really mean to be absolutely clear about what I mean to say. My job is basically writing, knowing that sometime in the future someone is going to try very hard to misunderstand what I wrote.
Regards.
|
|
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
Mark_Nowotarski
Newbie
Posts: 6
|
|
Re: algorithms and Ex Parte Lundgren
« Reply #4 on: Aug 16th, 2006, 4:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
It's been my experience that, if possible, it's still a good idea to put something in your patent application about how technology might be used to practically implemented the business method. Consultants are available for this. They outline a tech system and assign their rights to you. You add the tech system to the spec and list them as coinventors. It can add considerably to the chances of success.
The patent office is still wrestling with how to implement Lundgren and putting in some technology will give the examiners a bit more comfort until the dust settles.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print