Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Burton Strauss III, post: 2309133, member: 59677&quot;]Back after a week&#039;s vacation, couple items</p><p><br /></p><ul> <li>Condor&#039;s book can be borrowed (by members) from the ANA library</li> <li>The appeals court just threw down a major strike against process patents (post Alice Corp), ruling&nbsp; (see <a href="http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/12/operators-impairment-unpatentable.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/12/operators-impairment-unpatentable.html" rel="nofollow">http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/12/operators-impairment-unpatentable.html</a>) that abstract ideas are unpatentable (this has ALWAYS been true) and that claims without specifics will fail the tests post Alice...</li> </ul><p>&quot;An important take-away from this analysis is that the concept of an abstract-idea is closely tied-in with the novelty of the claims themselves – even at step-one of <i>Alice</i>. Thus, contrary to what many patent attorneys continue to believe, whether a concept is an “abstract idea” will depend upon the invention’s priority dates. However, on that same point, the Court rejected Vehicle Intelligence’s argument that its claim did not embody that broad concept of “testing-operators and taking control” since prior patents held by other companies already disclosed and claimed other methods of achieving those same results. The court rejected that notion since full-preemption is not a requirement of the Alice test.&quot; (from patently-o)</p><p><br /></p><p>I read this as a fascinating decision, since &quot;use an expert system&quot; is too general and disclosing how to program the expert system would lead others to easily find several ways around the patent.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in