Print

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

[TaiwanIP]

The author observes that the claim doesn't require a computer:  "What is interesting about this case and the RCT decision is that the method claims in question are not in any way tied to a computer implementation."  However, I don't see how you can "acquir[e] a magnetic resonance image" without an MRI machine -- I don't believe the law is that the particular machine must be a computer.  In addition, you normally have to physically transform matter by moving the matter into the MRI machine in order to acquire an MRI of the region of interest of the matter.

However, I'm sure there are examiners in certain technology centers that can take MRIs in their heads.

Regards.

I interpreted the author’s comments a little differently. I thought the point he was making was that formalisms, such as reciting “a computer-implemented method” in the preamble, can perhaps finally be done away with- that perhaps this marks the beginning of the end of such formalisms. Perhaps I’m wrong with interpreting what he meant here, but he does make this point very clearly at the end of his comments. In any event, I share what seems to be his wish that “this line of reasoning holds up” so that “patentees and practitioners may finally be relieved from having to follow formalistic claiming conventions invoking computer implementation of methods in order to avoid abstract idea objections under Section 101.” 

[JimIvey]

I interpreted the author’s comments a little differently. I thought the point he was making was that formalisms, such as reciting “a computer-implemented method” in the preamble, can perhaps finally be done away with- that perhaps this marks the beginning of the end of such formalisms.

The problem I have with his analysis is that it places too much faith in what I call "computer-implemented inventions that are not implemented in a computer." 

When I started practicing in the early 1990s, anything done by a computer would get a 101 rejection.  In the last 10 years or so, the rule was turned on its head and anything that could plausibly be implemented in a computer would likely draw a 101 rejection unless the claim recited the computer.  Neither of those approaches is correct. 

And, addressing the issue with formal recitations here and there is far too simplistic approach.  Years ago, as a 2d/3d year associate, a partner asked me to for some boilerplate or magic incantations to get around a 101 rejection for software.  I told him that there is no boilerplate, that you have to address the merits of the rejection, and that sometimes the examiner is right.  The next day, a file folder appeared on my desk from that partner.

I would suggest that any practitioner using simplistic formulas to get around 101 rejections spend some time studying 101 law and/or consulting with someone who has.

Regards.

[Isaac]

I interpreted the author’s comments a little differently. I thought the point he was making was that formalisms, such as reciting “a computer-implemented method” in the preamble

I think you are being charitable.  I don't see any hint that the author considered anything other than computer-implemented.  At best the author's remarks would cover very close equivalents.

so that “patentees and practitioners may finally be relieved from having to follow formalistic claiming conventions invoking computer implementation of methods in order to avoid abstract idea objections under Section 101.” 

The wording seems to confirm that the author was talking about computer-implemented methods.

[ChrisWhewell]

(because let's face it, the invention will be in the method...)

Be careful with that notion.