[oc] Patent limitations; was I'm laughing so much its hurts,

[Wamnet@aol.com]

Me thinks they should check with their patent counsel concerning some of the 
recent rulings on patent scope. Fair use and these rulings have significantly 
limited what is enforcable IP and what is not. 

A recent article (within the last year) in EE Times revealed that the current 
mindset of the circuit courts (the one that usually deals with patent 
litigation) has a major impact in the way patents are to be interpreted. 

Even still, patents do not allow one to hold a total monopoly on their IP. 
Protection yes, but the whole idea of patents is to allow competition and 
foster innovation; in return for releasing your IP, you get some (not all) 
protection from those that further the art.

At least this is how a patent attorney explained it to me during our filing 
process...

And remember, one can not hold a patent on pure math or algorithms; here's a 
clip from the MPEP manual used by patent examiners. This is from the seventh 
edition; you may want to see the link 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm

for newer info. Download the 8th edition chapter 2100 which covers 
patentability. 

Yea, I know, RSA was able to get around it. But I wonder if their "voluntary" 
release of it was due to their legal team being shot down for an extension, 
which rumor has, was filed.  And I'm wondering of the patent office may have 
felt that the original patent was ab bit limiting; bordering on unenforceable 
because of the following MPEP CH 2100 stuff.

You can file and get extensions for protection if the feds decide it is in 
the national interest or for certain bio patents.


excerpt from CH 21 7th edition:

ii) Computer-Related Processes Limited to a Practical Application in the
Technological Arts

There is always some form of physical transformation within a computer
because a computer acts on signals and transforms them during its
operation and changes the state of its components during the execution
of a process.  Even though such a physical transformation occurs within
a computer, such activity is not determinative of whether the process is
statutory because such transformation alone does not distinguish a
statutory computer process from a nonstatutory computer process. What is
determinative is not how the computer performs the process, but what the
computer does to achieve a practical application.  See   Arrhythmia, 958
F.2d at 1057, 22 USPQ2d at 1036.

A process that merely manipulates an abstract idea or performs a purely
mathematical algorithm is nonstatutory despite the fact that it might
inherently have some usefulness.  In Sarkar, 588 F.2d at 1335, 200 USPQ
at 139, the court explained why this approach must be followed:

No mathematical equation can be used, as a practical matter, without
establishing and substituting values for the variables expressed
therein.  Substitution of values dictated by the formula has thus been
viewed as a form of mathematical step.  If the steps of gathering and
substituting values were alone sufficient, every mathematical equation,
formula, or algorithm having any practical use would be per se subject
to patenting as a "process" under  101.  Consideration of whether the
substitution of specific values is enough to convert the disembodied
ideas present in the formula into an embodiment of those ideas, or into
an application of the formula, is foreclosed by the current state of the
law.

For such subject matter to be statutory, the claimed process must be
limited to a practical application of the abstract idea or mathematical
algorithm in the technological arts.  See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31
USPQ2d at 1556-57 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, 209 USPQ
at 10).  See also Alappat at 1569, 31 USPQ2d at 1578-79 (Newman, J.,
concurring) ("unpatentability of the principle does not defeat
patentability of its practical applications") (citing O"Reilly v. Morse,
56 U.S. (15 How.) at 114-19). For example, a computer process that
simply calculates a mathematical algorithm that models noise is
nonstatutory. However, a claimed process for digitally filtering noise
employing the mathematical algorithm is statutory.

Examples of this type of claimed statutory process include the
following:

 - A computerized method of optimally controlling transfer, storage and
retrieval of data between cache and hard disk storage devices such that
the most frequently used data is readily available.

 - A method of controlling parallel processors to accomplish
multi-tasking of several computing tasks to maximize computing
efficiency.  See, e.g., In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1400, 163 USPQ
611,616 (CCPA 1969).

 - A method of making a word processor by storing an executable word
processing application program in a general purpose digital computer's
memory, and executing the stored program to impart word processing
functionality to the general purpose digital computer by changing the
state of the computer's arithmetic logic unit when program instructions
of the word processing program are executed.

 - A digital filtering process for removing noise from a digital signal 
comprising
the steps of calculating a mathematical algorithm to produce a
correction signal and subtracting the correction signal from the digital
signal to remove the noise.

(c) Nonstatutory Process Claims

If the "acts" of a claimed process manipulate only numbers, abstract
concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the foregoing, the
acts are not being applied to appropriate subject matter.  Thus, a
process consisting solely of mathematical operations, i.e., converting
one set of numbers into another set of numbers, does not manipulate
appropriate subject matter and thus cannot constitute a statutory
process.

In practical terms, claims define nonstatutory processes if they:

 - consist solely of mathematical operations without some claimed
practical application (i.e., executing a "mathematical algorithm"); or

 - simply manipulate abstract ideas, e.g., a bid (Schrader, 22 F.3d at
293-94, 30 USPQ2d at 1458-59) or a bubble hierarchy (Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759), without some claimed practical application.

A claimed process that consists solely of mathematical operations is
nonstatutory whether or not it is performed on a computer.  Courts have
recognized a distinction between types of mathematical algorithms,
namely, some define a "law of nature" in mathematical terms and others
merely describe an "abstract idea."  See, e.g., In re Meyer, 688 F.2d
789, 794-95, 215 USPQ 193, 197 (CCPA 1982)






In a message dated 12/14/2001 4:14:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
paul.mcfeeters@ntlworld.com writes:

> "Our company owns a landmark patent on synthesizing C/C++ into HDL. We 
intend 
> 
>  on defending it. Most vendors have evaluated the patent and have 
determined 
>  that it is very difficult to synthesize or translate C/C++ into HDL 
without 
>  stepping on it."
--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml