|
| Re: Subject Matter Eligibility |
patent_type |
April 11, 2012 01:24 pm |
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with how the judge analyzed the patent claims in this case and arrived at an invalidity conclusion. It seems that the way she was thinking, everything is "abstract" and nothing is patentable. Or at least it gives rise to that argument in good faith if you are arguing against the patent.
I "liked" it because of the discussion of the CAFC/Supremes case law that led up to this point. But her application leaves me scratching my head.
And that is probably the perfect result of the CAFC/Supremes case law leading up to this point--the patent attorneys scratching their heads trying to figure out how/why a judge will apply this, uh, jurisprudence. And litigators having "support" for whatever argument they want to make.
Maybe the Chakrabarty "everything under the sun made by man" is all abstract, or at least what goes on in the mind of the user {grin}.
|
|
| |  |
|
