(Total Views: 337)
Posted On: 05/11/2018 10:32:09 PM
Post# of 82676
Did Knobbe Martins try to invalidate SFOR's claim to be the first to describe OOBA or did they try to say, "we'll give it to them that they might have been the first ones to describe OOBA but it wasn't inventive? That was my take on this....
Quote: "That StrikeForce was purportedly the first to describe the idea in combination with the computer components recited in its claims is not inventive; it is merely “generic computer implementation.” Indeed, combining an abstract idea with conventional computer components does not satisfy § 101, even if the resulting combination is new. Thus, StrikeForce’s alleged distinctions over the prior art fail to establish an inventive concept. As a result, StrikeForce’s claims are invalid under §Alice 101"..
Quote: "That StrikeForce was purportedly the first to describe the idea in combination with the computer components recited in its claims is not inventive; it is merely “generic computer implementation.” Indeed, combining an abstract idea with conventional computer components does not satisfy § 101, even if the resulting combination is new. Thus, StrikeForce’s alleged distinctions over the prior art fail to establish an inventive concept. As a result, StrikeForce’s claims are invalid under §Alice 101"..
(2)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
