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:
PERKINELMER v. INTEMA
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.
WE THINK NOT
Can any one liner capture our essence better than this?
WE THINK NOT
=======================
Mother Nature: She be a Giver of Laws.
Inventors: They be abusive takers.
Nature: Seen through the eyes of transformative metaphors:
4 comments:
Patent Docs predicts a return to the era of black box secrecy (a.k.a. the Dark Ages):
PerkinElmer Inc. v. Intema Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Hat tip to IPBiz for isolating the bottom line in the logic:
The bottom line:
"Because [our preordained conclusion is that] the asserted claims recite an ineligible mental step and [a] natural law, and [IOHO] no aspect of the [claimed] method converts these [preordained to be] ineligible concepts into patentable applications of those concepts, [then and therefore by such non-circular logic it falls out that] the claims cannot stand. Accordingly, we find the claims ineligible under section 101 and affirm the judgment for PerkinElmer."
IOHO= In Our Humble Opinion
[...]= added text
Post a Comment