Slashdot Mirror

It's a little-talked about story because of all the other blunders of the Bush administration, but there is a lot of talk in the Patents community about the flawed PTO management. Bush appointed heads of the patent office who have no experience in patents or management.

http://www.bustpatents.com/exam.htm

I'll make a couple of quick comments:

First, claim 1 may be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming unpatentable subject matter. It has been my experience that a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will issue against a "software patent" where the claim is not directed to something that produces a "useful, tangible, and concrete" result (see, State Street Bank v. Signature). More often, this type of rejection will issue against a claim (not an application), where the claim is directed to purely mathematical operations with no tie-in to hardware to perform that operation. In reading claim 1, there appears to be no claimed hardware that performs the algorithm recited, and hence, I would argue that the claim is invalid. For a more thorough discussion of patentable subject-matter, please see Section 2106.1 of the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure. However, without looking at the image file wrapper, I don't know what rejections were applied to this application to determine whether claim 1 was amended to overcome this specific rejection.

Now, that being said, if you are concerned about invalidating this patent (which I'll note issued in April 2006, almost one year ago), you should first find "prior art" before the earliest filing date of the application. In this case, that date appears to be September 26, 2002. I say "appears to be" because the application does not claim priority to an earlier filed foreign application or U.S. provisional application. Next, after gathering your pre-September 26, 2002, you should follow the re-examination procedures for submission. See Section 2200 of the MPEP. Keep in mind, that when a third-party submits prior art for a re-examination proceeding, the prior art should present a new question of patentability. After submission of the "prior art," that third-party is generally not allowed to make comments during the re-examination proceeding. Hence, if the USPTO finds that the "prior art" does not present a new question of patentability, you may have inadvertently made the patent "stronger" and less likely to be invalidated during litigation. Accordingly, you should consider whether infringing this patent may be better procedure, and thus filing a motion that the patent is, in fact, invalid.

This views represent my own and are in no way affiliated with any government organization or private entity.

It'll be like a presidential town hall meeting - I'll have a tool following me around lobbing softball comments my way. This is going to be great.

Actually, the administration doesn't allow people like me into their events. A 'softball' comment doesn't take many paragraphs to answer. They are just like you, they think that they are always right, and unwilling to entertain any discussion. They lambaste critics, and dismiss discussion they are not winning. They seem to believe that they can control reality by controlling the discussion of what is really happening. How is that different from you? Seriously, you should feel a kinship with the President and his staff.

Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a bunch of people who don't know anything about patents.

But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.

I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.

Yes, but only if 'the topic at hand' is about calling me a tool and other insults. The only thing you 'hung' is your 'reputation', but I suspect that you're a long standing troll on this site, and likely 'well known' by other handles.

You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?

So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.

Here is a link to Patent Examiner Salaries from 1998

thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.

This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".

I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.

Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?

Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here to impress 'others', I'm here to l

It'll be like a presidential town hall meeting - I'll have a tool following me around lobbing softball comments my way. This is going to be great.

Actually, the administration doesn't allow people like me into their events. A 'softball' comment doesn't take many paragraphs to answer. They are just like you, they think that they are always right, and unwilling to entertain any discussion. They lambaste critics, and dismiss discussion they are not winning. They seem to believe that they can control reality by controlling the discussion of what is really happening. How is that different from you? Seriously, you should feel a kinship with the President and his staff.

Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a bunch of people who don't know anything about patents.

But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.

I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.

Yes, but only if 'the topic at hand' is about calling me a tool and other insults. The only thing you 'hung' is your 'reputation', but I suspect that you're a long standing troll on this site, and likely 'well known' by other handles.

You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?

So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.

Here is a link to Patent Examiner Salaries from 1998

thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.

This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".

I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.

Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?

Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here to impress 'others', I'm here to l

First, you'll be shocked to discover that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The manual of patent examining procedure is the official government document that defines how the USPTO operates, and makes roughly 9,000,000 references to "patent examiners" and approximately 0 references to "patent clerks". "Patent clerk" is not a paid position in the United States Government. "Patent Examiner" is a paid position.

Here is a link to Patent Examiner Salaries from 1998. This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".

If Wikipedia attempts to define "patent clerk" as synonymous with "patent examiner," that's your and Wikipedia's problem.

It's nice that you are finally getting around to calmly discussing patents on this thread, so I'll answer.

You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?

Your next paragraph is one of the most inane things I have ever skimmed past. What in hell are you babbling about? I gave you an extremely focused and coherent point: Most people on Slashdot abuse the definition of "obvious" in the patent system. Your response is apparently directed to neo-con vs. liberal political ideology with what appears to be an allegation that I cannot cite laws just because I like them (I implicitly cited the 1952 Patent Act which codified the entire modern patent system, so there's no subtle way to express how dumb you're making yourself look). Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?

Groupthink isn't always right, but just slamming it as such, isn't much of an argument in itself.

Consider for a moment where that word originates.

Someone who doesn't even know what a Patent Clerk is, telling me that a third party would think you're intelligent and I'm the fool.

I'm being dead serious here. Think for a moment what it means when you call someone a tool. It means that they are easily manipulated by other people. When I said that I don't know what a patent clerk is, I knew full well that 1) the USPTO does not employ anybody with a job title "patent clerk", 2) the US government does not have a salary position called "patent clerk", 3) the manual of patent examining procedure makes no reference to a "patent clerk", and 4) lots of misinformed people think a "patent clerk" exists in the United States. I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.

Honestly, I didn't expect that you would be THIS easy to manipulate.

Your response indicates that you believe you've latched onto some kryptonite with this "patent clerk" silliness. You put the words "patent clerk" in bold font no fewer than 4 times to, heh heh, draw my attention to what a fool I must be. But of course, this was all in vain. You probably had no idea about points 1-3 I listed above, which generally point to a lack of experience with the patent system, but Wikipedia rode to your false rescue with point 4.

Seriously, contemplate what it means to be a tool.

Do you want to go for another round before this article closes? I suspect that I won't see another thread from 'back_pages', so we better get it in while we can. BTW, if I don't see another patent thread from this profile then I 'win', and you will have poisoned the account you're posting under (and I suspect it's not the first time).

Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a

Why aren't patents exposed to peer review, like academic articles are?

The USPTO has tried to make some serious changes geared towards cutting down on unreasonable examination times (see also section 1.705 of the MPEP). So besides the "qualified examiners" issue, the bigger issue is time. One would not want the system to fall apart due to backlog and overworked examiners, especially when you have patent factories like IBM et. al. that churn out 3000+ patents a year.

Personally, I don't believe that the qualifications of the examiners are questionable, but definately the environment they are required to work in is. People joke that they use google? Of course they would, if the engine they have to use is a piece of crap!

www.bustpatents.com

Looks like a job for Gregory Aharonian, who has busted a lot of patents in the past that had a basis in "prior art".

actually, this site would be a better reference

For more info, check out BustPatents.com for thoughtful, ongoing coverage of USPTO problems.

Try Bust Patents

That's certainly the conventional (Slashdot) belief, but it's frankly not true. Patent attorneys will often work on a contingency basis if you have a real case. Prove it to me: Show me a patent that was filed by a little guy that was "smashed" by a big guy.


I was not implying that "little guys" who can actually afford the patent process are smashed by big companies. I'm talking about huge companies who can afford to build up patent war chests in order to intimidate competition from entering the market.

Not to mention the various groups of patents that have the capacity to hurt real people.

Sure, bad patents can be overturned one at a time, but this often requires lots of money and lawyers too.

(And here is my opportunity to be controversial): The only reason many Slashdotters are against patents is because they want to steal other people's ideas, not because they are worried about corporations stealing the little guy's ideas.

Not really controversial--this is the standard corporate party line. Actually, many of us belive that ideas cannot be owned, and thus cannot be stolen. It's no surprise our corporate government doesn't share this viewpoint.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

Software Patent Institute

Bustpatents.com

invalid/withdrawn/pathetic software patents.

"Software Patents Tangle the Web,"

With billions of dollars in Internet sales at stake, the proliferation of broad e-commerce patents is sowing confusion, uncertainty and a good deal of cynicism among many software developers and business leaders. Some legal experts, such as Robert Merges, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, believe the sheer number of patents now pending on business methods has "pushed the patent system into crisis."

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

Software Patent Institute

Bustpatents.com

invalid/withdrawn/pathetic software patents.

"Software Patents Tangle the Web,"

With billions of dollars in Internet sales at stake, the proliferation of broad e-commerce patents is sowing confusion, uncertainty and a good deal of cynicism among many software developers and business leaders. Some legal experts, such as Robert Merges, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, believe the sheer number of patents now pending on business methods has "pushed the patent system into crisis."

If you just do a search on for patents on google, there's a link to a place that supposedly contains "the only large database in the galaxy, with information on over: 15,000 computer programs available in source code form, 50,000 software patents, and 800,000 abstracts to algorithms and software technology reports and articles. These software resources are the output of hundreds of government, academic and corporate facilities, not only in the United States, but also from foreign facilities. Our database has been under private development for eight years."

Not that it's needed in this case, but apparently for $400 bucks, they'll do a search for prior art.

"In these sources, many forms of prior art/reusable software components are searched for: source code listings to a program, pointer to where source code can be obtained, a pointer to where object libraries are located, moderately decomposed structural configuration for a computer program, pseudo-code description of a computer algorithm, and the claims to a software patent." It looks like they look through a lot of different kinds of material: "We check many sources, including government/university/corporate technical reports, journal articles, university theses, published books, commercial products (source code and object libraries), programs posted to/announced on the Internet, programs posted to standalone bulletin board systems, collections of software distributed as libraries on CDROMs, and existing software patents. Over 150 government/university/corporate facilities and over 240 journals are tracked." As I say, it's probably not need in this case, considering just how much prior art there is for these URLs, but in the future, someone should really make use of this database if stuff like this is ever in question.

Speaking of prior art... did any of you notice that URL I used to link to google?

Aren't corporations supposed to be more focused on doing business than suing?

For what it's worth, I hope RAMBUS loses this particular battle, even if it isn't likely. The Motley Fool posted an article a while back predicting the success of RAMBUS based on these patents. Hardware patents can be as harmful to the industry as software--it's a hot issue right now, and some people are trying to do something about it already.

So what should be done with patents? I haven't really heard a good solution yet. Most solutions either favor the corporations (and lawyers) or they throw out the entire system, innovation to be done at your own risk. Is there a middle ground?

Tim

• seek companies highly valued because of weak patents
• bet against them in the market
• break their patent
• cash in on bets

• http://www.bustpatents.com

shamelessly, and oftentimes profanely, attack[ing] the United States Government, specifically the Patent and Trademark Office

Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc

A large number of mainframe and minicomputer installations at that time included dial up access to menu-based systems. The ones I used did or something implanted false memories in my brain. The patent is invalidated by common practice at the time it was filed let alone prior art from 40 years (almost) before.

What it neat-ish is it is a good early example of bogus behaviour by the US PTO. They were being stupid in 1980 so it actually isn't such a recent phenomon. Problem is we're currently screwed as well as being screwed for the next 20 or 30 years until we get a clue about IP in this era.

Oh, BTW, there's a load (and I mean load) of really bad software patents we all infringe every day. IBM have many - drawing programs, forms - Microsoft have them too (read them, some are awful) - all the large players do. As Gregory Aharonian once said,

Q. How do you know your software infringes a patent?
A. It exists.

According to the article, here's what the suit alledges Aharonian's transgressions are:

"He shamelessly, and oftentimes profanely, attacks [the] United States government, specifically the Patent and Trademark Office, its examiners and various public officials and private citizens," the suit says. "He also purports to be an expert in patent law, though he has no specialized training in the field, has not graduated from any law school, is not admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office and is not authorized to practice law."

Say What? What the hell does attacking the bumblings of the USPTO and have anything to do with patent infringement?

I've met Mr. Aharonian before at a National Academy of Science conference on Intellectual Property, and had the opportunity to read his always entertaining email missives critiquing business method patents. He may be profane at times, but (in my opinion), he is one of the most articulate and analytical opponents of a fundamentally flawed patent system that continues to churn out limited, legally sanctioned monopolies on nebulous, specious and overly-broad business method "inventions" to the detriment of the public domain and true innovation.

I haven't seen the text of the lawsuit. But if the aforementioned article is accurate, it seems that Mr. Aharonian is being targeted by a slap suit (remember the McLibel trial in Britain?). Slap suits are typically frivolous attempts to silence critics of corporate interests by dragging them through an expensive, time-consuming and tortuous labyrinth.

FYI, Here is a recent Wired Magazine article about Aharonian and business method patents.
Aharonian's website is www.bustpatents.com. You can subscribe to his newsletter -- the Internet Patent News Service from this site.

Sincerely,
Vergil

Bust Patents -- "Should the Patent and Trademark Office be issuing 20,000+ new software patents every year? Is there that much novel and unobvious, unpublished, innovation in the software industry? Are biotechnology patents really avoiding these problems, especially as biotechnology patents incorporate more and more computer technology? Probably not, and thus your company or law firm will need resources and tools to cope with the growing legal problems associated with tens of thousands of patents of questionable validity being issued every year. If you are a victim of these patents, or want to make sure you don't victimize others with patents of dubious validity, these Web pages will help your efforts."

Bounty Hunter E-Commerce Experiment -- "I'm going to keep this simple. Look at this picture. Now that I have your interest, here is the scoop. I will give $25 to the first person who can correctly identify the object. You don't get any clues and you have to be exactly right."

John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com -- Industrial Strength Usability

Yesterday I came across Microsoft's taskbar patent (US 6,023, 272) which seems a bit far fetched given prior art in the area (parts of it may be okay though).

Gregory Aharonian's Bust Patents site is a good place to find things. He's on a (good) mission to fight the stupidity of the US PTO in regards to s/w patents. Help him!