You yourself might want to review the definition of non-obviousness at the USPTO's website, rather than the determination of non-obviousness on random websites.The only reasons I was citing IPwatchdog is because it gives a better overview, but if you want to go straight to the source (the MPEP) I'm game.
You're still stuck in the mind-set of "we did it one way before" -- in this case, making separate web pages -- "so anything different must be non-obvious".
Before we get into obviousness, lets quickly get rid of novelty (35 USC 102):
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). (From MPEP 2131)
Basically, if you don't have a reference which describes all portions of the claim, the claim can be considered to be novel.
Now to obviousness, suprpisingly we find this:
To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). (From MPEP 2143.03)
No. A patent has to be "non-obvious to a person with average skill in the same field of technology". This doesn't mean that somebody has to magically make a notebook appear full of notes -- prior art, if you will -- that pre-dates the patent.... Lack of prior art does not imply patentability.
From the two above, it most certinaly does. If you don't have prior art which teaches all claim limitations then it is patentable.
That simply means that the technology is outside of your field and/or timeframe. It does not imply that, for some of us who remember the technology in 1996, this claim has no merit.
The only reason you can say that is because you aren't applying the legal definition of obviousness. If you wish to argue this within the confines of established law then you will find that you are completely wrong. Obviousness is a well defined legal concept with rules.
If you want to argue that this is obvious then do so, but do so properly. If, however, you feel that the system is setup wrong, and there should be different requirements for establishing obviousness then argue that point. In either case you are making a constructive argument.
However, if you decide just throw out 100s of years of established law, make up your own definition of obviuosness and run around complaining about how this patent is obvious by your definition then you really aren't doing anything worthwhile.
Read through the MPEP chaper 2100 to see the real requirements of patentability and obviousnes. Then read this patent and see if you can find prior art that establishes a lack of novelty or a lack of obviousness. If you can't then the patent will stand under the current system. If you don't like that, argue against the system itself and not the patent.
As long as it is part of the public record you should be ok. Be sure to include dates with everything you release (including a last updated on... date on your website). You'll notice on the last patent (reccomndations and amazon story) that two references were listed by the examiner as:
Alexandria Digital Literature, www.alexlit.com, no date known.*
Amazon.com, www.amazon.com, no date known.*
There is a good chance that if these two items contained specific dates, or a history of changes of some kind that this patent never would have been issued, but since a date could not be established the examiner could not use them as prior art.
I'm just going to copy from a previous post of mine since the responses seem to be repeating themselves:
For example, take a look at these two limitations:
(a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;
(b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;
Why is it obvious to have a menu with different languages on a website selling products internationally? Why not just have separate sites placed in each country with only their specific lanugage. Further, why have currency be a menu selectable item?
I would also add that obviousness (what you should be trying to establish) and obviousness in hindsight (what you are actually establishing) have two very different meanings.
So... what's obvious has always had to have prior documentation? Most people would say that what is obvious does not need documentation especially where it concerns a process.
Unfortunately it is a requirement and it does serve a purpose, but it can be incredibly madening at times.
Is it, for example, anywhere (presumably formally) documented what the process is that you go through when going to the toilet? If not, does that mean the USPTO could grant me a patent on such a process?
You could certinaley try, but you'd probably end up with a scene from some old movie of some guy taking a crap as the rejection.
Obviousness is a legal concept which must be proven. It is setup this way for a reason. So how do I know that this was obvious back in 1996?
For example, take a look at these two limitations:
(a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;
(b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;
Why is it obvious to have a menu with different languages on a website selling products internationally? Why not just have separate sites placed in each country with only their specific lanugage. Further, why have currency be a menu selectable item?
Are you seriously suggesting that the concept of selling something overseas, and using a computer to keep track of prices and related information, was non-obvious in December of 1996?
No, Im not suggesting that international commerce was non-obvious in 1996, and Im not suggesting that using a computer to sell goods was non-obvious in 1996. However, this patent isn't that cut and try. The patent can be 95% old material and still be issued based on that new 5%.
I'm also saying that something isn't legally obvious just because you say it is, you need to have proof that it is obvious. And until I see some concrete proof that this existed prior to 1996 I'll consider its obviousness (before December 30, 1996) to be undecided.
1. A computer implemented process for carrying out an international commercial transaction comprising:
running a transaction program on a computer system so as to integrate processes including:
(a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;
(b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;
(c) selecting a product to be purchased and a destination for shipping such product to be purchased;
(d) accessing at least one local or remote database for obtaining
(i) price information for the product to be purchased; and
(ii) a product code for an international goods clasification system pertinent to such product; and
(iii) international shipping information related to an origination point of such product and said destination;
(e) calculating costs involved in moving such product to said destination based upon said destination and such product;
(f) determining a total cost of the transaction that includes a price of the product;
(g) receiving an order for such product thereby triggering an electronic process for confirming existence of available funds; and
(h) upon confirmation of availability of said funds, accepting said order, generating an electronic record, such record including the content of a commercial invoice, to facilitate passage of such product to said destination.
.
Now point out all 11 of those limitations on the hometeam site that you linked to. Heres a hint, all you have is a page with a few dead links on it, there are no prices, no selectable lanaguages, no databases, no transaction processing.
The problem lies in the burden of proof. To reject a patent the PTO must provide documentary evidence that the claims of the patent was obvious at the time of the filing of the application. Calling it obvious the way you did in your original post would be laughed out of court in a matter of seconds.
The basic reason behind the requirement for documentary evidence is to keep the system fair and impartial. If there was no such requirment everything could be called obvious by anyone for personal reasons, because competing companies paid them to say it was obvious, or just for the hell of it. The system needs accountability in both directions and so far requring evidence is the best way they have of doing it.
This also causes the unfortunate side affect of making it incredibly difficult to reject some of the simplest concepts because nobody ever bothers to discuss them since they are taken as universally known.
This coupled with the time limits examiners have to complete a case, it means that alot of the examiners have to pick and choose their battles. This is in no way the optimal system, but congress doesn't seem to want to invest the money required to fix it, so its the best we have right now.
I would guess that if you took the time to try to find a publication dated prior to December 30, 1996 (the priority date of this application) that proves that this concept was obvious or previously existed you would find it an annoyingly difficult task.
Does your employer still have the old version of its software from before December 30, 1996 posted somewhere? Is there an article in a magazine/newspaper/journal that describes how your employer operated its online transactions prior to December 30, 1996? Is there any public record at all of your employer's operations that give a technical description of its transactions prior to December 30, 1996?
If none of this crap exists when the application was examined how in the hell do you expect anyone to find it?
One of the big problems with software patents is there is no good central location which describes all the programs which have existed, how they operated and when they were introduced. Without this its nearly impossible to find dated evidence that some of these ideas were known at the time the application was filed.
You obvious have never read 35 USC 102 and 103, or any of the case law which interprets these laws. Try again, this time provide dated proof that these concepts were obvious before December 30, 1996.
The history of this application can be found here.
A couple of interesting points: - This case was rejected 4 times prior to being allowed. - This case was originally allowed after the second rejection, but the allowance was withdrawn. - After the fourth rejection, this case was sent to the board of appeals, where the examiner was partially affirmed. - After the boards decision, a final amendment was made and the case was allowed. - Four years past from the time the case was first looked at by an examiner until the case was finally allowed.
Care to explain this guys experiences then? (also from the article):
"If you can wait for two years for a bypass surgery, then you don't need it or you're dead -- one of the two," Trehan said. "Similarly, if you're wobbling on your frozen joints for two years because of a waiting list, it's a human tragedy."
One such patient is Tom Raudaschl, an Austrian who lives in Canada and earns his living as a mountain guide. Suffering from osteoarthritis in his hip, Raudaschl last year decided to undergo "hip resurfacing," a relatively new procedure that involves scraping away damaged bone and replacing it with chrome alloy. He learned he would have to wait as long as three years if he wanted to have the operation under Canada's national health plan, a delay that would have cost him his job, Raudaschl said. In the United States, the procedure would have cost $21,000, he said.
So this month, Raudaschl flew from Calgary to Chennai, on India's east coast, where a surgeon at Apollo Hospital performed the operation Wednesday for $5,000, including all hospital costs, Raudaschl said by telephone from his hospital bed.
Some people can't afford the costs of the US and can't afford the waits offered by Canada's universal system. Either way this guy was screwed. He needed the procedure to keep his job, but couldn't afford to wait for three years before the Canadian doctors would perform the surgery. He also couldn't afford the procedure in the US either, so he choose to go to India to have it done. Sounds like both systems are broken to me.
But the same hospitals now are starting to attract non-Indian patients from industrialized countries, and especially from Britain and Canada, where patients are becoming fed up with long waits for elective surgery under overstretched government health plans.
"If you can wait for two years for a bypass surgery, then you don't need it or you're dead -- one of the two," Trehan said. "Similarly, if you're wobbling on your frozen joints for two years because of a waiting list, it's a human tragedy."
Some people can't wait the required time for a doctor to become available, so they end up doing flying over to India to get it done. Universal health care isn't perfect either.
As a Packers fan born and raised who has been transplanted to the DC area, I can tell you that both teams have played like shit so far this year.
Packers D is pretty laughable, but the Redskins have something like 2 defensive starters brought over from last year. Arrington is injured, Coles can't catch shit and Portis on the some kind of "learn the new offense by fumbling" plan.
It should be an interesting game, in the same way that the Arizona - San Francisco game this week was interesting.
1. Recording of shows from the program guide is "All or nothing" The program guide lets you record a given episode of a show, OR record ALL episodes of a show. This works when a show appears once a week, but for things that show multiple times a day, you either end up with a LOT of duplicates. I can't say "record all episodes that show at 7PM on Thursday," for example.
I had the same box through Cox Cable in Fairfax, VA and had the same problem. However, I recently moved into Comcast cable's area and ordered a DVR through them (also a SA-8000) and it has the option of recording once, recording all, or recording all on this channel in this time slot.
The time slot option will record a show everytime is broadcast in a certain time slot (e.g. M-F 7:00-7:30). You still can't specify a certain day to record on every week, but it is a definite improvement. There is also a "record first-run" option which I havne't played around with yet, although if it works it would probably be what you are looking for.
You might want to call you cable company and see if they can give you an updated version of the firmware.
It's amazing how the hordes of prior art that every slashdotter claims to know about all of a sudden vanishes when the requirments for something to truly be considered prior art are applied.
Come on people, wheres all the great art you were talking about in the previous thread?
I'll admit to not being schooled in all aspects of relatively obscure mathematics. However, as you stated:
Abstract data types are part of mathematical type theory. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with branches of mathematics such as typed lambda calculus? Process execution scheduling is an application of process algebra. Garbage collection is an application of graph theory, specifically the detection of nodes from a graph that are not connected to a root node.
Those aspects of software are applications of math. Just because something uses math, does not mean it is math as I had previously stated.
Perhaps you can explain how the selective movement of data from based upon certain criteria can be solved as a mathematical problem. You can use mathematical forumlas to determine if a piece of data should be moved, but those formulas will not tell you where to find the data, how to create the connection to the remote computer, etc...
I'll agree that mathematics is an important part of computer sceince, but I'm still not convinced that software is nothing more than math.
I don't have a copy of Amazon's one-click shopping software's code to hand, but if I did, and could be bothered to devote the time to it, then yes I could.
Perhaps you can tell me this then, assuming you were to obtain the discussed forumla, could you then simply enter that mathematical formula into a computer and have it function in the same way as the amazon one-click shopping patent, complete with credit card processing, inventory and shipping management?
I never alleged anything of the sort. If anything, I was saying the exact opposite that two things can be functionally equivelant but not be equivelant for purposes of patent rejections/infringement.
So your argument against the reality of production costs for big name artists is: Avril Lavigne sucks! It's amazing how many people don't understand the realities of the recording industry.
Another thing, who says we need the radio, MTV, cross promotions with Pepsi, 2 million dollar ads on the Superbowl to get any kind of message across?
We don't, but they will be around as long as they remain profitable. I haven't listed to a commercial radio station since I got a CD player in my car. The only radio I listen to is NPR - PRI stations and WFMU, a free-form station out of New Jersey.
However, the reality of it is that mainstream artists wind up making a hell of a lot more money siding with the large RIAA labels than those who don't. Radio, MTV, etc. are huge money makers for everyone invovled. The labels make the majority of the profits, but they also front the majority of the money in production and advertising. Is this fair? Who knows, I doubt Avril Lavigne is complaining about the relatively small share of proceeds she gets from record sales though.
Also keep in mind that these are voluntary contracts which the bands sign into, if they get screwed its their own damn fault.
I've heard this said many times and quite frankly feel it is a over generalization of the case.
Lonath's post equates abstract algorithms and useful mathematical algorithms without ever identifying how software fits into the picture. Supposedly, "software is math" as stated above, and therefore, software is nothing but an abstract way of writing a mathematical algorithm which can be assigned numbers and solved using mathematical operations. Given this, it would be reasonable to assume that all software can be reduced to an equation which gives a final result. Given this, I ask you what the equation would be for the amazon one-click shopping software would be?
There are lots of computer science problems which do not occur in mathematics. For example data structures, process execution scheduling, garbage collection. Granted these make use of mathematics, but that does not make them pure mathematical problems.
IANAL, nor do I play one here, but the word seems to be that "function" vs. "implementation" matters for copyright but not patents
The question above was about "functional equivelants". If you want to use mathimatics as an example, two equations can both produce the answer of "1", but do using vastly different methods (i.e. subtraction vs. integration). The question in most patents is not the final result, but the method used to get there.
I would also argue that patents protect implementations of ideas, rather than ideas themselves. For example, the idea of compressing music is well known, but there are many implementations of that idea which are patented. However, this seems to be more of a semantics issue. Though, I am curious as to how the writter of the Groklaw post would define "ideas" and "application" in the above context.
Slashdot Mirror
Read through the MPEP chapter 2100 and take a moment to think about why the system is setup the way it is.
Then go back and read your posts, see what you have argued, compare that to the requirments and let me know what you come up with.
You're still stuck in the mind-set of "we did it one way before" -- in this case, making separate web pages -- "so anything different must be non-obvious".
Before we get into obviousness, lets quickly get rid of novelty (35 USC 102):Basically, if you don't have a reference which describes all portions of the claim, the claim can be considered to be novel.
Now to obviousness, suprpisingly we find this: No. A patent has to be "non-obvious to a person with average skill in the same field of technology". This doesn't mean that somebody has to magically make a notebook appear full of notes -- prior art, if you will -- that pre-dates the patent.
From the two above, it most certinaly does. If you don't have prior art which teaches all claim limitations then it is patentable.
That simply means that the technology is outside of your field and/or timeframe. It does not imply that, for some of us who remember the technology in 1996, this claim has no merit.
The only reason you can say that is because you aren't applying the legal definition of obviousness. If you wish to argue this within the confines of established law then you will find that you are completely wrong. Obviousness is a well defined legal concept with rules.
If you want to argue that this is obvious then do so, but do so properly. If, however, you feel that the system is setup wrong, and there should be different requirements for establishing obviousness then argue that point. In either case you are making a constructive argument.
However, if you decide just throw out 100s of years of established law, make up your own definition of obviuosness and run around complaining about how this patent is obvious by your definition then you really aren't doing anything worthwhile.
Read through the MPEP chaper 2100 to see the real requirements of patentability and obviousnes. Then read this patent and see if you can find prior art that establishes a lack of novelty or a lack of obviousness. If you can't then the patent will stand under the current system. If you don't like that, argue against the system itself and not the patent.
For example, take a look at these two limitations:Why is it obvious to have a menu with different languages on a website selling products internationally? Why not just have separate sites placed in each country with only their specific lanugage. Further, why have currency be a menu selectable item?
I would also add that obviousness (what you should be trying to establish) and obviousness in hindsight (what you are actually establishing) have two very different meanings.
So... what's obvious has always had to have prior documentation? Most people would say that what is obvious does not need documentation especially where it concerns a process.
Unfortunately it is a requirement and it does serve a purpose, but it can be incredibly madening at times.
Is it, for example, anywhere (presumably formally) documented what the process is that you go through when going to the toilet? If not, does that mean the USPTO could grant me a patent on such a process?
You could certinaley try, but you'd probably end up with a scene from some old movie of some guy taking a crap as the rejection.
Care to provide some proof for this, because I find it rather difficult to belive.
For example, take a look at these two limitations:Why is it obvious to have a menu with different languages on a website selling products internationally? Why not just have separate sites placed in each country with only their specific lanugage. Further, why have currency be a menu selectable item?
Are you seriously suggesting that the concept of selling something overseas, and using a computer to keep track of prices and related information, was non-obvious in December of 1996?
No, Im not suggesting that international commerce was non-obvious in 1996, and Im not suggesting that using a computer to sell goods was non-obvious in 1996. However, this patent isn't that cut and try. The patent can be 95% old material and still be issued based on that new 5%.
I'm also saying that something isn't legally obvious just because you say it is, you need to have proof that it is obvious. And until I see some concrete proof that this existed prior to 1996 I'll consider its obviousness (before December 30, 1996) to be undecided.
I suggest reading this short snippet about impermissible hindsight.
Now point out all 11 of those limitations on the hometeam site that you linked to. Heres a hint, all you have is a page with a few dead links on it, there are no prices, no selectable lanaguages, no databases, no transaction processing.
Care to try again?
The problem lies in the burden of proof. To reject a patent the PTO must provide documentary evidence that the claims of the patent was obvious at the time of the filing of the application. Calling it obvious the way you did in your original post would be laughed out of court in a matter of seconds.
The basic reason behind the requirement for documentary evidence is to keep the system fair and impartial. If there was no such requirment everything could be called obvious by anyone for personal reasons, because competing companies paid them to say it was obvious, or just for the hell of it. The system needs accountability in both directions and so far requring evidence is the best way they have of doing it.
This also causes the unfortunate side affect of making it incredibly difficult to reject some of the simplest concepts because nobody ever bothers to discuss them since they are taken as universally known.
This coupled with the time limits examiners have to complete a case, it means that alot of the examiners have to pick and choose their battles. This is in no way the optimal system, but congress doesn't seem to want to invest the money required to fix it, so its the best we have right now.
I would guess that if you took the time to try to find a publication dated prior to December 30, 1996 (the priority date of this application) that proves that this concept was obvious or previously existed you would find it an annoyingly difficult task.
Does your employer still have the old version of its software from before December 30, 1996 posted somewhere? Is there an article in a magazine/newspaper/journal that describes how your employer operated its online transactions prior to December 30, 1996? Is there any public record at all of your employer's operations that give a technical description of its transactions prior to December 30, 1996?
If none of this crap exists when the application was examined how in the hell do you expect anyone to find it?
One of the big problems with software patents is there is no good central location which describes all the programs which have existed, how they operated and when they were introduced. Without this its nearly impossible to find dated evidence that some of these ideas were known at the time the application was filed.
Also I reccomend reading the claim and revisiting your question of novelty.
You obvious have never read 35 USC 102 and 103, or any of the case law which interprets these laws. Try again, this time provide dated proof that these concepts were obvious before December 30, 1996.
Until you can do that, this patent will stand.
The history of this application can be found here.
A couple of interesting points:
- This case was rejected 4 times prior to being allowed.
- This case was originally allowed after the second rejection, but the allowance was withdrawn.
- After the fourth rejection, this case was sent to the board of appeals, where the examiner was partially affirmed.
- After the boards decision, a final amendment was made and the case was allowed.
- Four years past from the time the case was first looked at by an examiner until the case was finally allowed.
I am in no way supporting creation (in fact I firmly believe that it is wrong), but on what basis do you call creation scientifically implausible?
but we sure as hell aren't (a) paying for heart surgery
If you think that you aren't paying for your health care in Canada you are sorely mistaken. You are just paying for it in a different way.
As far as which system is better, I really don't think anyone here is qualified to answer that question.
What part of "-1 Offtopic" don't you moderators understand?
As a Packers fan born and raised who has been transplanted to the DC area, I can tell you that both teams have played like shit so far this year.
Packers D is pretty laughable, but the Redskins have something like 2 defensive starters brought over from last year. Arrington is injured, Coles can't catch shit and Portis on the some kind of "learn the new offense by fumbling" plan.
It should be an interesting game, in the same way that the Arizona - San Francisco game this week was interesting.
I still have to root for the Packers though.
1. Recording of shows from the program guide is "All or nothing"
The program guide lets you record a given episode of a show, OR record ALL episodes of a show. This works when a show appears once a week, but for things that show multiple times a day, you either end up with a LOT of duplicates. I can't say "record all episodes that show at 7PM on Thursday," for example.
I had the same box through Cox Cable in Fairfax, VA and had the same problem. However, I recently moved into Comcast cable's area and ordered a DVR through them (also a SA-8000) and it has the option of recording once, recording all, or recording all on this channel in this time slot.
The time slot option will record a show everytime is broadcast in a certain time slot (e.g. M-F 7:00-7:30). You still can't specify a certain day to record on every week, but it is a definite improvement. There is also a "record first-run" option which I havne't played around with yet, although if it works it would probably be what you are looking for.
You might want to call you cable company and see if they can give you an updated version of the firmware.
It's amazing how the hordes of prior art that every slashdotter claims to know about all of a sudden vanishes when the requirments for something to truly be considered prior art are applied.
Come on people, wheres all the great art you were talking about in the previous thread?
I'll admit to not being schooled in all aspects of relatively obscure mathematics. However, as you stated:
Abstract data types are part of mathematical type theory. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with branches of mathematics such as typed lambda calculus? Process execution scheduling is an application of process algebra. Garbage collection is an application of graph theory, specifically the detection of nodes from a graph that are not connected to a root node.
Those aspects of software are applications of math. Just because something uses math, does not mean it is math as I had previously stated.
Perhaps you can explain how the selective movement of data from based upon certain criteria can be solved as a mathematical problem. You can use mathematical forumlas to determine if a piece of data should be moved, but those formulas will not tell you where to find the data, how to create the connection to the remote computer, etc...
I'll agree that mathematics is an important part of computer sceince, but I'm still not convinced that software is nothing more than math.
I don't have a copy of Amazon's one-click shopping software's code to hand, but if I did, and could be bothered to devote the time to it, then yes I could.
Perhaps you can tell me this then, assuming you were to obtain the discussed forumla, could you then simply enter that mathematical formula into a computer and have it function in the same way as the amazon one-click shopping patent, complete with credit card processing, inventory and shipping management?
I never alleged anything of the sort. If anything, I was saying the exact opposite that two things can be functionally equivelant but not be equivelant for purposes of patent rejections/infringement.
So your argument against the reality of production costs for big name artists is: Avril Lavigne sucks! It's amazing how many people don't understand the realities of the recording industry.
Another thing, who says we need the radio, MTV, cross promotions with Pepsi, 2 million dollar ads on the Superbowl to get any kind of message across?
We don't, but they will be around as long as they remain profitable. I haven't listed to a commercial radio station since I got a CD player in my car. The only radio I listen to is NPR - PRI stations and WFMU, a free-form station out of New Jersey.
However, the reality of it is that mainstream artists wind up making a hell of a lot more money siding with the large RIAA labels than those who don't. Radio, MTV, etc. are huge money makers for everyone invovled. The labels make the majority of the profits, but they also front the majority of the money in production and advertising. Is this fair? Who knows, I doubt Avril Lavigne is complaining about the relatively small share of proceeds she gets from record sales though.
Also keep in mind that these are voluntary contracts which the bands sign into, if they get screwed its their own damn fault.
Software is math.
I've heard this said many times and quite frankly feel it is a over generalization of the case.
Lonath's post equates abstract algorithms and useful mathematical algorithms without ever identifying how software fits into the picture. Supposedly, "software is math" as stated above, and therefore, software is nothing but an abstract way of writing a mathematical algorithm which can be assigned numbers and solved using mathematical operations. Given this, it would be reasonable to assume that all software can be reduced to an equation which gives a final result. Given this, I ask you what the equation would be for the amazon one-click shopping software would be?
There are lots of computer science problems which do not occur in mathematics. For example data structures, process execution scheduling, garbage collection. Granted these make use of mathematics, but that does not make them pure mathematical problems.
IANAL, nor do I play one here, but the word seems to be that "function" vs. "implementation" matters for copyright but not patents
The question above was about "functional equivelants". If you want to use mathimatics as an example, two equations can both produce the answer of "1", but do using vastly different methods (i.e. subtraction vs. integration). The question in most patents is not the final result, but the method used to get there.
I would also argue that patents protect implementations of ideas, rather than ideas themselves. For example, the idea of compressing music is well known, but there are many implementations of that idea which are patented. However, this seems to be more of a semantics issue. Though, I am curious as to how the writter of the Groklaw post would define "ideas" and "application" in the above context.