(Total Views: 624)
Posted On: 02/21/2019 7:26:38 PM
Post# of 82686
Re: Urbansndaup #49769
Going forward with an appeal, IMHO we will need to fight Anologies with Anologies.
The Role of Analogies in the Alice Analysis
By Jeremy Anapol and Michael L. Fuller
September 8, 2017
https://www.knobbe.com/news/2017/09/role-anal...e-analysis
Courts may find a sound analogy persuasive because it can demonstrate that a claimed solution is not technology-specific, and is therefore abstract. For example, if an analogy shows that all steps of a method claim were performed on paper before the invention of computers, then a court may conclude that the claimed solution is not computer-specific.
Even Non-Obvious Patent Claims May Lack Inventive Concepts
By Jeremy Anapol and Maria Anderson
December 22, 2017
https://www.knobbe.com/news/2017/12/even-non-...e-concepts
Thus, practitioners seeking to show that their claims are patent-eligible should not argue that they are merely distinct from the prior art. Instead, they should explain how the differences between the claims and the prior art reflect a technology-specific problem and solution. Conversely, practitioners seeking to show that claims are not patent-eligible should demonstrate why any purported solution is not unique to a specific technology, e.g., by explaining how the solution is analogous to activities conducted mentally or on paper.[6]
Best
The Role of Analogies in the Alice Analysis
By Jeremy Anapol and Michael L. Fuller
September 8, 2017
https://www.knobbe.com/news/2017/09/role-anal...e-analysis
Courts may find a sound analogy persuasive because it can demonstrate that a claimed solution is not technology-specific, and is therefore abstract. For example, if an analogy shows that all steps of a method claim were performed on paper before the invention of computers, then a court may conclude that the claimed solution is not computer-specific.
Even Non-Obvious Patent Claims May Lack Inventive Concepts
By Jeremy Anapol and Maria Anderson
December 22, 2017
https://www.knobbe.com/news/2017/12/even-non-...e-concepts
Thus, practitioners seeking to show that their claims are patent-eligible should not argue that they are merely distinct from the prior art. Instead, they should explain how the differences between the claims and the prior art reflect a technology-specific problem and solution. Conversely, practitioners seeking to show that claims are not patent-eligible should demonstrate why any purported solution is not unique to a specific technology, e.g., by explaining how the solution is analogous to activities conducted mentally or on paper.[6]
Best
(0)
(0)
