That's the first action non-final ruling. Once you prove you're serious by appealing the matter, you get the approved stamp.

The problem is that the USPTO assumes the courts can work out the validity for them and they rubber stamp things when they don't have a relevant expert in the art (or if they're busy, or it's Tuesday).

Genuine question - this seems like an interesting thing, but as someone whose expertise in physics is incredibly limited, is there anyone who would be willing to provide an "explain it like I'm five" version for an individual like myself who is interested in understanding the speed differences observed in the particles?

Thanks, internet!

If what is said in the summary is true, we're past the point of a "strong risk" of it not ending well and are well into that being a reality. Apparently, this genius radio engineer was also causing interference for the two-way radio systems used by first-responders.

The main number 1 problem that needs to be cleaned up is the Patent Office they are creating this unnecessary lawsuits, wasted billions because they haven't an idea what an Abstract Idea is? I just don't believe that they are that stupid.

The process language was aimed at chemistry originally, with the aim to make patentable novel and useful chemical processes.

3. The method of producing undulations in a continuous voltaic current by the vibration or motion of bodies capable of inductive action, or by the vibration or motion of the conducting wire itself, in the neighborhood of such bodies, as set forth.

The courts have recognized it would be idiocy if read literally and generally declined to do so. But even with it in, it is not a free pass on the rest of the requirements, one of which is that mathematical algorithms are explicitly excluded.

Because a specific device may be patentable subject matter, while the algorithm itself is not, and the combination of an algorithm with a general purpose computer is an obvious application of the general purpose computer as soon as the algorithm is known.

Seriously, how does that not make perfect sense?

"Sure, the general purpose computer is known, but if the algorithm is not, and the patent claims the computer performing that algorithm, then it's not blindingly obvious." That's right, the algorithm itself may not be obvious, but algorithms are not patentable! That's settled law.

The patent attorneys try to get around that by patenting a "method" or a "device" instead, which just happens to embody the algorith. But when you read carefully there is no method (other than hiring a coder to program the algorithm into the computer) and no device (other than a general purpose computer doing exactly what it was designed to do.

If they would actually write an application for a special purpose machine that only implements this one algorithm (instead of any algorithm you want to hand it) and that machine itself incorporated innovations, then those should probably be patentable. But that would require actual R&D expenditures, and risks, and still would not be the gold mine that a patent on the simple idea of using a ubiquitous general purpose computer to execute a known algorithm could be.

Are you seriously asking what an abstract concept is?

It's something that doesn't exist in the real world.

If the justices could not come up with a definition, they're disturbingly ignorant.

Mathematics is entirely dependent on your choice of axioms. You can accept Euclid's fifth postulate, and discover a composite truth of Euclidean geometry, or reject it and describe some aspect of non-Euclidean geometry. Both are equally valid (though not at the same time) and both describe the real world to some degree. They are however solely logical concepts which do not exist in any real sense. Empirical facts, (e.g. "fire burns things") are true based on observations about the real world, and are only true to the limits of our observational abilities. Mathematical truths are true regardless of observations; they are true in all possible universes, whether those universes include observers.

To quote Phillip K. Dick, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Math is not real. Asserting ownership rights over a non-real concept is a popular delusion, but one which should not be tolerated. The cynic in me would suggest that the reason for the Court's confusion in these matters is that they are making an analogy to the concept of justice, which is also both abstract and widely sold.

"But, if you claim a computer configured to perform certain new and non-obvious functions, it can't be implemented wholly in algorithmic terms. It's a device, not the blueprints..."

And that argument fails on the additional grounds of the novelty requirement.

Using a general purpose computer to execute an algorithm can only be described as blindingly obvious, since this is the one and only function of a general purpose computer.

Described, yes. Software patents (and business method patents, etc.) are the ones which can be implemented wholly in algorithmic terms. You can describe a new manufacturing process with math, but you can't actually manufacture anything until you apply that math by rearranging matter and energy in the real world. It's the application that the patent covers, not the description. The device, not the blueprints.

This ruling simply states what should be obvious, that adding "on a computer" to an abstract concept does not magically transform it into a patent-eligible invention. The patent is still really about the abstract concept, despite the "on a computer" gimmick, and thus remains ineligible.

A claim should fail 101 if it claims something that isn't one of the above.
The were not claiming to invent a machine (the computer)
They were not claiming to invent the process (hedging)

Instead their claim was using a machine to solve a problem. That doesn't fall under 101 unless it falls under a patentable process.

SCOTUS said that the 2 step process of (take exising process) and (apply it on a computer) is just a drafting trick to get a patent on old things. If you remove the drafting trick then you have a process with no steps. So they rejected it under 101.

Ah, then we agree. And I think you'd agree with this as well:

The goal of an ordinary modern appellate (or supreme court) judge is to confuse the issue enough so he appears clever and important! If the resolution of an issue is too simple, then the judge gets no accolades from the legal community and no invitations to award ceremonies where he can wear black robes. :-)

You've almost got this right, Theaetetus:

Because the district court hearing the case invalidated the patent under section 101, the appeal was limited on those grounds. Neither the appellate court nor the Supreme Court could turn to section 103 (obviousness) to invalidate the patent, because there was no ruling on those grounds at the lower court level for them to review. Now if the respondent had made arguments under section 103 and the district court had ruled the patent to be invalid for obviousness, then the Supreme Court could have affirmed on those grounds.

What we really need is judges at the district court level that can distinguish reasonings based upon section 101 from 103. By continuing this "abstract idea" line of decisions, the Supreme Court has only clouded the issue further.

Isn't the definition that you have to be able to give a patent to a developer skilled in the specific art and he/she can implement exactly the device described by the patent without inventing anything new? If that's not possible, the patent is supposed to be invalid because it's an abstract idea instead of a concrete implementation.