Re: Re: Question for "in the know"

Posted by Sprink on April 02, 2003 at 14:09:21:

In Reply to: Re: Question for "in the know" posted by in the know on April 02, 2003 at 06:07:46:

I had no idea that patent was invalidated. It happened after the case, I'm assuming? When did that happen? Can you refer me to anything to read about that decision or is it all internal?

I quite expected the "canned response" you gave. I was just curious since you stated you were an insider what the real story was. I am dead set against these kinds of patents, so...well...anyway! :)

: You're referring to US 5,193,056 to Data Processing System for Hub and Spoke Financial Services Configuration"

: The specific patent above was invalidated due to an Examiner error. This happens, fact of life.
: Just from what I know, business methods is a VERY tough area to find prior art for because its such a new field. Examiners have rely ALOT on non patent literature and it is quite impossible to evalaute everything out there. All I could say is that Examiners evaluating Business methods applications are doing the best that they can. Established arts have a huge collection of patent prior art than an examiner can pull from. New technology is harder to examine because quality and rejections go hand in hand. Applicants want to know that the patent they recieve will not be overturned. I guess this is a canned response, ya know? Examiners do the best they can with the limited amount of time and resources they have per case. Hope this kinda sorta helps...

: : What's your view on how the USPTO is handling business method patents since State Street?

Follow Ups:

• Re: Re: Re: Question for "in the know" in the know 04:54:54 4/03/03 (3)
  • Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for "in the know" M. Arthur Auslander 12:30:36 4/04/03 (2)
    • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for "in the know" in the know 06:33:01 4/07/03 (1)
      • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for "in the know" M. Arthur Auslander 22:01:17 4/07/03 (0)

Post a Followup