Tuesday, November 27, 2012

No Inventor's Good Deed Goes Unpunished

'You must also pay the lawyer fees of the trespasser'.

What more can an appeals court do to twist the dagger deeper into the heart of a stabbed inventor?

We speak here of INVENTIO AG v. OTIS ELEVATOR (Fed. Cir. Decided: November 27, 2012) ["Costs to Otis"]

And the dagger to the heart?

That comes with an "appeals" court deciding de novo issues of fact including, how did the person of ordinary skill in the art think at the time of invention.

The jury found in favor of the inventor, that the invention was not obvious.

Au contraire says the "appeals" court:
"So how could it not “logically ... commend[] itself to [the ’094] inventor’s attention in considering his problem” of seamlessly controlling access to elevators? ... We need not decide the question because, based on the jury charge, a reasonable juror could not conclude that the RFID prior art was nonanalogous. ... Because the jury should have found the RFID prior art analogous, the conclusion becomes inescapable that ’094 patent is a clear example of a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods [yielding] no more than . . . predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., ..."

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Another Victory for Our War on Science

Glorious Patriots:
Our War on Science Continues
with fresh news of grand victories on all fronts!

Today's victory story comes to you thanks to the efforts of those good folk stting on the bench of the US Court of Appeals that reviews patents.
Thank heavens they know abstraction when they see it:

Need we even quote their ever vigilant insights?

Process claims fail this requirement [for "something more"] if, apart from the ineligible concept, they contain nothing more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field.” Id. Because they merely describe the ineligible concept, amounting to a claim on the concept, such claims run afoul of section 101. That is the case here.

And note how unscientific and foolish are the clown inventors:

Intema responds that the claims are directed to a specific medical test, not to an abstract method. Intema contends that the machine-or-transformation test is satisfied by the “assaying” measurement because the sample is chemically transformed. Intema also believes that the measurement of an ultrasound scan involves the transformation of data into a visual depiction

Oh clever inventors and your dangerously devious lawyers, do you honestly think you can fool us?

Since Intema’s claims recite mental processes and natural laws, we must decide if Intema added enough to the statements of ineligible subject matter to direct the claims, not to the ineligible concepts themselves, but to applications of those concepts. We think not.


Can any one liner capture our essence better than this?



Mother Nature: She be a Giver of Laws.
Inventors: They be abusive takers.
Nature: Seen through the eyes of transformative metaphors: