Question that should have been presented: Are claims of patent "directed" to intrinsic patent disclosure of which they are an integral part or are they "directed" to an arbitrary extrinsic concept made up by a "trust my subjective judgment" judge, examiner or; more often, accused infringer?
From http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/argument/upcoming-oral-arguments :
Panel O: Friday, December 11, 2015, 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 203
15-1080 DCT McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America
Should be an interesting one
Link to District Court 101 PDF holding here
PatentDocs review of DC 101 ruling here.
News brief here
p.s. of 12/11/2015: Oral hearings recording here.
UPDATE: Patent Arcade's Summary of Oral Hearings is here.
Another report on the Oral Hearings is here: "Software Patent May Survive Scrutiny"
Link to text of McRO's US Pat. 6,611,278 here.
Link to Google copy of 6,611,278 here
From the 6,611,278 patent (col 4, line 32): "The method preferably comprises a set of rules that determine what the output morph weight set stream will be when any sequence or phonemes and their associated times is encountered. As used herein, a "morph weight set" is a set of values, one for each delta set, that, when applied as described, transform the neutral mode to some desired state, such as speaking the "oo" sound or the "th" sound. Preferably, one model id designated as the anchor model, which the deltas are computed in reference to. "
No comments:
Post a Comment