Re: libdts patent issue?
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/21/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> wrote:
> > The corresponding US patent US4750121 was allowed without any such
> > problem. Claim 1 does not even recite "a computer", only several
> > "means" that perform certain steps to a master trust.
>
> The US examiner was clearly not on the ball, and/or not properly
> advised as to the significance of State Street.
US Patent class 705 is full of such patents where the examiner
wasn't "on the ball". Only very recently have I seen US office
actions where the examiner talks about "technological progress".
> The PBS Partnership
> patent would, I suspect, be tossed out if litigated in the US,
> because there is not a reliable engineering relationship between the
> process being followed and the desired outcome. It's a collection of
> organizational tactics, which might represent an effective business
> approach, but it's not an invention.
My understanding was that this kind of patent was perfectly
allowable under US law. There's a useful, concrete and tangible
result, and you can't throw it out because it's a method of
doing business. That's how "everyone" interpreted State Street Bank.
> I have yet to see any evidence that persuades me that what is
> patentable in the US in some application area is a strict superset of
> what is patentable in Europe.
It's not. They are two partially overlapping circles. The criteria to
determine whether something is statutory are different in both
regions. To a certain degree they give you the same outcome, but
this is not necessarily true.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: