Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Burton Strauss III, post: 2299766, member: 59677"]Under Alice, (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int%27l" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int%27l" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l</a>), you can't patent an abstract idea. Especially you can't just throw a computer into an existing process and claim protection. The ruling continued with these points:<ul> <li>A mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer "cannot impart patent eligibility."</li> <li>"[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."</li> <li>"Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words "apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility."</li> <li>"Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment."</li> </ul>So read the claims, ignoring the use of a computer and tell me if the patent is an abstract idea or new and novel: as is always true with patents, the gap between what it seems to say and what it actually says is large. Only the claims matter... Drop the computer and isn't that just teaching somebody how to grade from photographs?[/QUOTE]