Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ka008]

Hi,
A data packet for telecommunication or computer networking has many fields. (e.g. pre-amble, header, data, check-sum, ... etc.)

If an inventor design a novel data packet with specific arrangements on the data fields, is that patentable? Does it have to associate with a hardware (i.e. a transmitter or receiver) to overcome 101 rejection?

KA

[JimIvey]

I've had success in getting such claims past Section 101.  You have to focus on structural inter-relationships between the various fields.  In addition, it's helpful to try to craft claims to methods that use the fields -- essentially covering using the format.

Regards.

[khazzah]

If an inventor design a novel data packet with specific arrangements on the data fields, is that patentable? Does it have to associate with a hardware (i.e. a transmitter or receiver) to overcome 101 rejection?

If you are asking whether you can literally claim a data structure and still pass 101, my answer is No, and my support for that statement is In re Warmerdam.

That's not an insurmountable obstacle though, But one can easily transform a non-statutory claim to a data structure per se into a statutory claim to a data structure stored in memory or on a computer readable storage medium. My support for that is In re Lowry and In re Warmerdam. See below for more info on these cases

try to craft claims to methods that use the fields -- essentially covering using the format.

Excellent idea. Don't claim the structure itself, claim operations on the structure (examining, comparing, acting based on contents of the fields, etc.)

Finally, claiming a stored data structure and/or a method of using the structure doesn't automatically make the claim OK under 101. You still have to make sure your claim isn't "abstract" under Bilski v. Kappos. [Whatever that means .... ]

MPEP 2106.01

Both types of "descriptive material" are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(discussing patentable weight of data structure limitations in the context of a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency) and In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d *1354, 1360-61, 31 USPQ2d *1754, 1759 (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim) with Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory).

[ka008]

Thanks for all your suggestions. It is very helpful.

KA

[MYK]

Just wanted to say, Karen, you're amazing.  Thanks.