« June 2012 | Main | August 2012 »
July 30, 2012
Disabling
The CAFC has added proving a
negative to the burdens a patentee must
bear. Any reference cited is "presumptively enabling." An applicant has
to "rebut the presumption of the operability of [the prior art patent]
by a preponderance of the evidence." In other words, an applicant must
prove by evidence that presumed evidence lacks evidence.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:36 AM | Prosecution
July 26, 2012
Insured
Like banks, insurance companies
are a cornerstone of the capitalist
empire that the U.S. government feels beholden to. The courts are part
of the cabal of plutocratic protection. So it was a nonstarter when
Bancorp sued Sun Life for infringement of its insurance policy
management patents; patents too valuable to be monetized. The district
court invalidated the patents without
bothering to consider the claims. The CAFC blithely affirmed (CAFC 2011-1467).
"There is no requirement that claims construction be completed before
examining patentability." Just knowing the subject matter and affected
industry was enough to bury the assertion. The practical process claims
were "no more than abstract ideas."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:56 PM | § 101
July 9, 2012
Alice in Wonderland
Alice Corporation got patents
on a computerized trading platform
that ameliorates settlement risk. CLS Bank, spooked over its own
infringement, filed a DJ. A DC district court
judge ameliorated her docket by ruling the four
Alice patents invalid under §101, as being drawn to mere "abstract
ideas." The appeals court thought the claims something more concrete,
albeit with dissent. To the courts, patents read like pornography: they
know what they like when they see it. Patent holders best get used to
bending over.
Continue reading "Alice in Wonderland"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:11 PM | § 101
July 2, 2012
Crossbar
In pursuit of a "crossbar
arithmetic processor" patent, Blaise
Laurent Mouttet provided another lesson in the way of Obzilla: any
possible combination of known features is not patentable, even when the
prior art technologies are not compatible. Mouttet
envisioned an arithmetic processor using a crossbar structure. He cited
a prior art publication, Das, that disclosed a "nanoscale crossbar
array with molecular switches." The examiner found Falk (5,249,144),
which taught a "programmable optical arithmetic/logic device," and
Terepin (4,633,386),
an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter. The examiner put them together to
fabricate Mouttet's claimed invention, a rejection affirmed by the PTO
appeals board and CAFC.
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)