Thursday, September 29, 2016

And cancer, yes we beat you (in our moonbeam minds)

"We" won!
Did another triumphant "Moonshot".
And beat that there cancer stuff for good.

USPTO Announces Cancer Moonshot Challenge Winners

Gotta hand it to us.
"We" are brilliant as moonbeams in our own deluded minds.

(** This post probably needs a bit of historical background to understand. There are a bunch of hubiristic, "Cancer we will beat you" commercials on TV as well as the Biden/Obama "Moonshot" project. It is a lot of celebrity and politician PR without substance. As if chanting, singing, running and wearing colored bracelets is going to do the trick. And now we have the US Patent Office joining the flash mob with announcements about "winners". Yeah us! We won. Right?)

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Sanity pokes its tiny head up above ocean of insanity

At long last, a sign of hope.

In a break from a constant stream of insanities, the Fed. Cir. steps back and takes a more detailed look at preemption and specificity in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai

"It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks. ....

"Further, the automation goes beyond merely "organizing [existing] information into a new form" or carrying out a fundamental economic practice. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. While the result may not be tangible, there is nothing that requires a method "be tied to a machine or transform an article" to be patentable. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 603 (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 100(b)). The concern underlying the exceptions to § 101 is not tangibility, but preemption. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301.