Software, Open Source and Programmers

On August 12, 2014, I spoke with computer expert Bob Zeidman (pictured left) on the record for an in-depth interview that published on IPWatchdog.com. The interview lasted approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes and was over 11,000 words in length. I think it was an excellent and intriguing discussion about the reality of software, both from a coding and market perspective. We also spoke at length about the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice v. CLS Bank, Bilski v. Kappos, and Diamond v. Diehr. We also discussed what type of disclosure might be enough to satisfy both the Patent Office and the Supreme Court, which is increasingly becoming the arbiter of all things patent-eligible.

While a lengthy conversation like this would be of interest to those who work in the area, there were a number of intriguing points raised during our interview that I hope all patent practitioners would be interested in. For that reason, I offer here highlights of the interview. For the complete interview, please see A Conversation about Software and Patents.

(more…)

09.17.14 | Patent Issues, software patents | Gene Quinn

Patent Drafting: Defining Computer Implemented Processes

The following post was written by Gene Quinn , of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is radically updating the Patent Bar Examination starting in April 2011.  Since I teach the PLI Patent Bar Review Course that has required John White and I to revise our materials.  One of the new things tested will be the recently released 112 Guidelines, which are full of great information and explanation, particularly relating to computer implemented processes; what many would call software.  Being the “software guy” one of my responsibilities has been to work on the 112 Guidelines and the Bilski Guidelines for the PLI course.  So I thought I would take this opportunity to write, once again, about how to disclose computer implemented inventions to satisfy the disclosure requirements, which are embodied specifically in 35 U.S.C. § 112.

The statutory requirements for computer-implemented inventions are the same as for all inventions.  That means that in order to be patentable the invention must meet the patent eligibility test in 35 U.S.C. § 101, the invention must be new (§ 102), it must be non-obvious (§ 103) and it must be adequately described (§ 112).  Since the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has continually urged patent examiners to get beyond the § 101 inquiry except in extreme cases.  Prior to the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision many examiners would simply see a computer-implemented method and issue a blanket and rather non-specific rejection asserting that the invention was not patent eligible subject matter under § 101.  The USPTO focus on getting past § 101 and to the meat of the invention means that such rejections are no longer the norm.  It also means that the Patent Office is pushing the real question about whether an patentable invention is presented into the adequate description space pursuant to § 112.  Thus, a thorough and complete description is absolutely essential when your invention relates to a computer-implemented method, whether it is software, an Internet processes or a business method. (more…)

03.15.11 | PLI Patent Bar Review Course, written description | Stefanie Levine