IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "bilski guidelines"

A Guide to Patenting Software: Getting Started

Any good patent application that covers a software related invention will need to put forth three specific pieces of information. First, you need to describe the overall computer architecture of the system within which the software will exist. Second, you need to prepare a single flowchart that depicts the overall working of the software. Third, you need to prepare a series of flow charts that show with painstaking detail the various routines and subroutines that together connect to create and deliver the complete functionality of the computer system as enabled by the software.

Summer 2011: The PLI Approach to the New Patent Bar Exam

It has always been my belief that the PLI course is the best, and now I think there is absolutely no doubt. Yes, there are some competitors out there but how many other courses have two faculty members that are practicing patent attorneys and law professors? John and I both have a private practice and we have made legal education an important part of our careers. We are even patent attorneys, which might sound like an odd thing to tout but there are actually courses out there that don’t have patent attorneys developing the course and creating materials. The patent bar exam is hard enough as it is, the rules of patent practice are almost ridiculously archaic and you think you can take a patent bar course taught by someone who hasn’t ever even passed the exam let alone represented anyone in real life? Yeah, right. Think again.

Patent Drafting: Defining Computer Implemented Processes

So what information is required in order to demonstrate that there really is an invention that deserves to receive a patent? When examining computer implemented inventions the patent examiner will determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. An algorithm is defined by the Patent Offices as a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task. The patent application may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. In my experience, flow charts that are described in text are the holy grail for these types of applications. In fact, I just prepared a provisional patent application for an inventor and we kept trading flow charts until we had everything we needed. Iterative flow charting creates a lot of detail and the results provide a tremendous disclosure.

Top 10 Patent, Innovation & IP Events of 2010

At this time of the year all typically sit back and reflect on the year that has been, spend time with family and friends, watch some football and set a course to follow into the new year. So here are the top 10 events that shaped the patent, innovation and intellectual property industry during 2010 — at least according to me, and with a heavy patent emphasis. What did you expect?

Behind the Scenes: A Day in the Life of David Kappos

On July 19, 2010, I was granted back stage pass of sorts, for a behind-the-scenes look at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I had, initially requested an interview with Director David Kappos and was given an affirmative response, but then I floated the idea of a three-part series to commemorate the first anniversary of David Kappos leaving the private sector to take the helm at the USPTO. Rather than just do an interview, I suggested something different. I thought it might be particularly interesting to profile a day in the life of David Kappos, much like the President allows certain journalists to do by giving them access to the White House for a day, with an associated tour and interview. Peter Pappas, the Chief Communications Officer and Senior Advisor to Kappos, liked the idea and agreed to work with me to get it scheduled.

Patent Office Releases Interim Bilski Guidelines

This morning the United States Patent and Trademark Office published Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos. The Interim Bilski Guidance is effective July 27, 2010, and applies to all applications filed before, on or after the effective date. Most noteworthy is that the Patent Office is encouraging examiners to issue 101 rejection in only “extreme cases” and allow patentability to be decided by sections 102, 103 and 112.