(Total Views: 521)
Posted On: 05/23/2019 10:07:51 AM
Post# of 82687
Remember that the Knobbe Martens attorney stated that he didn't deny that SFOR patents were "useful" but also stated that the Federal circuit has defined 101 eligibility as a "computer specific solution to a computer specific problem". The PTAB never defined it as such but the court did. NOW, WE HAVE THIS!!! SFOR may not even have fight anymore cases!!! Note:
The bill would also add a subsection (k) to Section 100 defining “useful” as “any invention or discovery that provides specific and practical utility in any field of technology through human intervention” and would replace subsection (f) of Section 112 with the following:
This is exactly what SFOR patents do!!! Very very significant for SFOR and us!
The bill would also add a subsection (k) to Section 100 defining “useful” as “any invention or discovery that provides specific and practical utility in any field of technology through human intervention” and would replace subsection (f) of Section 112 with the following:
This is exactly what SFOR patents do!!! Very very significant for SFOR and us!
(14)
(0)
