Avoiding Patent Death – Draft Smart Claims

Introduction: I continue to closely monitor the case law regarding patenting computer software.  The August 26, 2021 decision of Universal Secure Registry v Apple is an example.  In this decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (usual final arbiter of patent disputes) invalided 4 patents as merely claiming abstract ideas.  Abstract ideas are…

Read More →

Creep of Patent Eligibility Goulash

Introduction: I have written frequently about the morass of “logic” created by the courts regarding the patent eligibility of computer implemented business methods and software.  This logic pertains to whether the software is an “abstract idea” and therefore not eligible for patent protection.  This is a fluid topic.  It has been termed eligibility goulash by…

Read More →

Sample Patent Flow Chart

Introduction: Attached below is a sample patent flow chart.  I start with the inventor’s conception of the idea.  Included are the steps to be taken to reach the point of possible patent filing.  (Note my sample assumes that a provisional application is filed first.  However it is possible to go directly to the Non-provisional application…

Read More →

Patent Goulash For Engineers

INTRODUCTION: I wrote an article in October 2019 for mechanical engineers (and others) warning that the Section 101 morass, i.e., Patent Goulash, was not limited to computer software business methods or medical diagnostic procedures.  The long twisted arm of unpatentable “natural law” and “abstract ideas” was extending to patent applications for improved mechanical structures.  See Mechanical Engineering and…

Read More →

“Groundbreaking” But Not Patentable?

INTRODUCTION: It is clear abstract ideas are not patentable. However the topic is much more complex. I have written a number of articles regarding the fog shrouded abyss related to patenting computer business methods and medical diagnostic procedures.  The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (commonly known as the “Federal Circuit”) continue to…

Read More →

Avoiding the “Un-patentable Abstract Idea”

INTRODUCTION: I have written many times of the ambiguity created by the courts in the Alice and Mayo decisions regarding what is patentable subject matter.  I am today suggesting a method of “avoiding the un-patentable abstract idea”. What I am referring to is the rejection of patentable innovations on the basis that the patent is merely claiming an abstract idea.  An abstract idea…

Read More →

When is Computer Software Patentable?

Software is patentable when and if it can meet the following two part test: Does the claim recite (expressly state or inherently infer) that the software pertains to a method of organizing human activity (including satisfying legal obligations), mathematical formulas or mental processes?  If no, then the software claim is patent eligible.  If yes, then go to the second part…

Read More →

Patenting Software – Another Wrinkle

Introduction If you have followed my past postings, you will know I am often trying to explain issues involved in patenting software or computer business methods.  Much of the controversy of the last several years has been whether the software or business method is actually patentable subject matter.  This has involved discussions of Section 101 and whether…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Devices

Introduction This article is meant to be read in conjunction with my article Patentability Swamp.  In this prior article, I have discussed the newest USPTO Guidelines (October 17, 2019) pertaining to patenting matters that may incorporate patent ineligible material under 35 USC Section 101, i.e., natural law, natural products, natural phenomena or abstract ideas.  I have discussed the…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Diagnostic Procedures

Introduction This article is a follow on to my July 19, 2019 post entitled Patenting Medical Devices and Procedures.  It may be useful to review this earlier blog post.  What prompts this new post is the pending petition of Athena Diagnostics Inc. regarding the invalidation of its patent for detecting a neurological disorder (Myasthenia gravis).  I discussed this case, Athena…

Read More →