Showing 3 ideas for tag "101"
(@chrisw) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2106.03, I: clarify Nuijten paragraph "tangible" explanation

Please see MPEP 2106.03, I. (Jan. 2018), at 18, right column. The second non-bulleted paragraph (“paragraph A”) begins: “Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category” (at 2100-19). Since paragraph A solely relates to Nuijten,* I suggest revising paragraph A to expressly relate to signals, and to clarify the meaning of “tangible.” For example, I propose revising paragraph... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@justin.blaufeld) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

Incomplete citation to Symantec in 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(A.)

MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II.)(A.) introduces the full citation for Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., which is then relied upon for the pincite for the rest of the MPEP.

However, the first full citation to this case is missing its identification of the Federal Circuit in the last part of the citation. It just provides the year of the decision, which is the form that is usually reserved for when it is otherwise... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@chrisw) kudos icon +

2100 Patentability

2106.04 (1/2018): Enfish "character as a whole" missing

MPEP 2106.04 (Jan. 2018) (at 2100-21, right column) quotes the original 2014 Guidance (79 FR 74618, 74622) that “A claim is directed to a judicial exception when ... an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim.” However, the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision specifically found that the “‘directed to’ inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether the claims *involve* a patent-ineligible concept.”... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes