Business Methods and Software Patents are perfectly OK

The most frequently overlooked support for computer software and business models being patentable - US Patent Act Title 35, The United States Code, §101:

Whoever invents or discovers any new or useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore...

That is why this stnadard rule of thumb must be heeded: claims should be drafted from the point of view of the server, the subscriber, AND the software manufacture etc. (i.e., In re Beauregard claims).

The standard caveat

In each patent application there must be a standard caveat for any potential competitors, infringers and licensees. In the Specification section of the patent application, the start of the technical narration is headed with this (typical) paragraph: Before explaining the disclosed embodiment of the present invention in detail it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of the particular arrangement shown since the invention is capable of other embodiments. Also, the terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and not of limitation.

and finalized with this caveat:

While the invention has been described, disclosed, illustrated and shown in various terms of certain embodiments or modifications which it has presumed in practice, the scope of the invention is not intended to be, nor should it be deemed to be, limited thereby and such other modifications or embodiments as may be suggested by the teachings herein are particularly reserved especially as they fall within the breadth and scope of the claims here appended.

Some applications that have details drawings, or where drawings are a crucial piece of the application, might also mention drawings in a way that almost sneaks up on you. I don;t have a good example of these.

A way to add to an idea - Continuation in Part

This tactic has a simple advantageous goals:

1. To add to a previously filed application, without risking a prior art infringement (102e).

2. To enable a partially new entity (new inventor) to file an application based on a prior application by a partially different entity, and not to risk infringement of parent application (paragraph 102e) see US Patent Laws.

How to write a patent abstract

An abstract, just like a patent title (see the previous post), has to stick to the gist of the invention. It must briefly discuss only what the invention is, not the advantages. The advantages are left for the Prior Art section (read here). Better yet, the abstract is actually the first independent claim (from US Patent No. 6,202,053, Method and apparatus for generating segmentation scorecards for evaluating credit risk of bank card applicants.)

1. A computer implemented method for evaluating credit risk of bank card applicants comprising the steps of: a) dividing a population of bank card applicants into a plurality of sub-populations using a processing unit, based on a first factor selected from a factor group consisting of length of credit history, number of reported trades, reported delinquency, bank card utilization, and revolving balance acceleration; b) dividing at least one of said sub-populations into additional sub-populations based on a second factor selected from the factor group, the second factor being different from the first factor selected from the factor group; c) developing a scorecard for each of said plurality of sub-populations and additional sub-populations; d) applying one of said scorecards to a bank card application; and e) scoring said application, based on said applied scorecard. rewritten into a spoken, non-legalese language, the abstract should be this: A computer implemented method for evaluating credit risk of bank card applicants comprising the steps of dividing a population of bank card applicants into a plurality of sub-populations using a processing unit, based on a first factor selected from a factor group consisting of length of credit history, number of reported trades, reported delinquency, bank card utilization, and revolving balance acceleration; dividing at least one of the sub-populations into additional sub-populations based on a second factor selected from the factor group, the second factor being different from the first factor selected from the factor group; developing a scorecard for each of the plurality of sub-populations and additional sub-populations; applying one of the scorecards to a bank card application; and scoring the application, based on the applied scorecard. simple, isn't it? note bolded the's replacing patent language said's Also check out the previous post on patent titles.

How to save time (and money) on patent searches by not reading titles

Most people performing patent searches on their own use the USPTO, Google Patent Search and many of the supposedly free online patent search databases. Having no experience with patent research, they avoid reading into the Specification and Claims sections, and easily judge what they see by a patent's title. According to patent case law, a title can serve as a technical description, or a disclosure, if it is written by an ego-driven inventor or anyone else second-guessing other inventors, assuming that the detailed description in the title would quickly dissuade a browsing patent searcher from trying to reinvent the same thing. That's why the titles like these are common: HAND-HELD DEVICE HAVING A MULTI-CHANNEL ENCODER FOR SIMULTANEOUS SECURE TRANSMISSION OF VIDEO, IMAGE AND TEXT MESSAGES There are no laws in US requiring a precise language in a title. That is why most well-written titles read like this: IMPROVED HIGHWAY BARRIER SYSTEM FOR CALCULATING INDEFINITE LOOPS Thus our hand-held device should have the title of IMPROVED TRANSMISSION DEVICE Next time when you search patent database, remember that the search found the patents through searching within the specification and claim sections, not the titles.

How to write strong patents using these often neglected caveats

Many patents suffer from too much ego and pompous, advertizing content that disclose zero according to the patenting requirements.

Discovering something: discovery is not manufacture. This is one of most typical patent rejections. Invention necessarily involves the suggestion of an act: new product, new result, new process new combination to produce new product or result.

Misleading description. If there are details which are not necessary and are put in to mislead then the patent is void.

The patenting requirement is to tell of the best method known to ensure good faith on the part of the applicant: if the inventor knowing two agents for effecting an end could by disclosure of one preclude the public from the benefit of the other, he might for his own profit force a more expensive one on the public keeping back the simple and cheap one which is contrary to good faith.

Claim not fairly based: a claim to be supported in the specification must also relate to the problem solved. Otherwise it is too wide. The inventor is entitled protection for an article that embodies his idea but not for an article which while capable of being used to carry out his idea into effect is described in terms which cover things quite unrelated to his idea and do not embody it at all.

Theories that are wrong do not invalidate patent unless it amounts to a statement that would in practice be misleading. This happened in the case of attempts to patent methods of nutrition according to blood types, and in the case of the red Kabalah string.

Grounds of revocation

Insufficiency : the specification is not OK

Non-disclosure of best method

Claim not fairly based - claim not based on specification

Ambiguity - the scope of the claim is not defined

Inutility - it does not solve the defined problem

False suggestion - any falsehood

Prior grant

Lack of novelty - previously revealed

Obviousness

Applicant not entitled to apply- poorly elucidated, formulated, "half-baked" disclosure

Patent obtained in contravention of the rights of the petitioner

Invention not a manufacture)see above)

Use of invention (would be) illegal

Prior secret use

Patent specification calls for strategically streamlined synonyms

Fore example, in the technical specification section of a patent, these rules, almost taken for granted, are to be obeyed at all times:

For- use

Wherein the claims section, one might say

said lever for actuating said valve

in the specification the same message, centered on use is to be written as

operator uses lever to open or close the valve

Novel- innovative

in the background section, the novel is fine, but in the specification section innovative is a must. The reason? Novel is abstract, in a colloquial, literary sense, while innovative implies an inventive direction, indicating that the invention is truly an innovation, and not a stretch of an idea that must be called novel. The same holds for non-obvious, which is an indirect way of saying new, and is better served by innovative.

consisting of , including, containing

consisting of , including, containing, are all fine in the technical description, but when it is required to stipulate that consisting of , including, containing exclusively A, B, C

it is to be reworded as comprising at least A, B and C

in all other instances the concepts can be modified using words such as exclusively, solely, directly

plurality is great for the claims section, but in the specification it is more than one

and so is multiplicity - which must be many, at least one

Experiments in past tense always, rest in present:

Never admit any prior art unless you are certain that it exists.

Ingenuity of technicalities

Some more of the masterfully crafted caveats, for the patent examiner as well as a potential infringer may be more enjoyable to read than a lease on a condominium:

Such concerns and their solutions are conventional and well documented in the background art which a person skilled in the art will be conversant.

Elements not specifically shown or described herein may be selected from those known in the art.

...in accordance with principles commonly known to those of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention pertains

The particular components shown are not necessarily exhaustive of the components contained therein, which any other components are generally known in the art.

The present invention contemplates substitutes of the components shown that are capable of carrying out substantially the same functions. - this statement carefully navigates the message of relating the simplicity of the invention, while staying safe.

A second embodiment of the present invention is shown in Figure 5 and includes substantially

While not wishing to be held to any theory, it is believed the above described effects (inhibiting atherogenic progression and stabilizing plaque), preferably occur through inhibition of the recruitment of inflammatory cells by directly controlling the expression of a gene - here, the setting the condition (not wishing...), the verbiage of ...believed..., ...preferably... occur serves as a professional CYA.

The accompanying drawing in which like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout the figures and the drawings.

The principles and operation of a system according to the present invention may be better understood with reference to the drawings and the accompanying description. Before turning to details of the present invention, it should be appreciated that the present invention provides two sets of features, each of which may be used alone, or which may be combined to provide a particularly useful and efficient system. The first feature relates to the use of zzzz. The second feature relates to zzzz.

It is believed that one skilled in the art can, based on the description herein, utilize the present invention to its fullest extent. The following specific embodiments are to be construed as merely illustrative and not limitative of the remainder of the disclosure in any way whatsoever.

The trickiness of the technical description phraseology

Very often an text from another patent must be inserted into a patent application, almost verbatim. This practice would equal an implicit admission of a prior art anticipating (rendering non-novel) the application, had the application not used this standard verbiage

The …which is incorporated by reference for all purposes as if fully set forth herein

Very often the language of the technical description within the patent application must be technically correct, though not necessarily precise in engineering terms, while enabling, by teaching a literate technical person to manufacture the invention:

The angular divergence of gimbal roll axis 64 from platform roll axis 68 in Figures 3A-3C has been exaggerated for illustrational clarity.

the line drawings in patent submissions may be surprisingly simple, sometimes hand-drawn, though neat, in their black-and-white monotony. They do not need to be precise, nor truly representative. A propeller blade, the turboprop engine and the unique hub may look as if drawn by a tidy elementary school pupil.

More of the cautionary, self-protective CYA verbiage:

It is to be understood that the...descriptions below are illustrative, and are not intended to…

does not restrict the present invention to the specific details set forth below…

It will be recognized by those with skill in the art that…

...known in the art

At the end of the introductory section, there must be an formula that proves the application's compliance with the US Patent laws' Paragraph 101, that the invention is presents a solution to the public need due to the disadvantages of the existing prior art:

...a widely recognized need for... which would overcome the disadvantages of presently known

Isn't it easy?

Specification stylistics

For example, in the technical description,. i.e., the specification section of the appication, the discussion of the drawings must be introduced by this legalistic sentence:

...the accompanying drawing in which like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout the figures of the drawing

The language must be definite, the following are too nebulous to enable any claims that follow the section:

would... may... it ...It is then possible... can...

Pronouns must be decidedly avoided: it, them

The claims section is so serious that pronouns are never used therein.

The present tense is the king:

“surface to be free of at least…” should be “enabling at least … to be removed”

“can be” should be “is”

“capability” is rewritten as “structural characteristic”

“with” is too amaturish, weak, nebulously fuzzy (in parallel, or including, internal to?) the thought idea related as “containing”

Thus: no such verbiage as would, could, may, possible, can, will

No pronouns it, its, them, this

"It is" always means something that can be expressed more clearly.

Patent writing basics

Unique free-market commerce in US so far has shaped an inventive environment that has developed the most practical and fair patenting system. The clarity of English language, and the rules for pedantic, though precise method of expressing, describing, teaching, claiming and enabling an invention made a US patent the most authoritative business tool.

Regardless of business intentions, or the caliber of an inventor, a patent, when written with utmost care, would always protect the intellectual rights of the inventor. Unlike patenting requirements overseas, which have a flavor of braggadocio, commercial cliches, and egotistic whitewash.

A good example is the European use of characterized in the claim language. The word is the most obtuse, most foreign to the legal profession, and, for the lack of a fancy word, plain fuzzy.

Characterized is more common to the software programmers' object-class milieu. It is more common to psychologists, art reviewers, and any profession that has to describe a behavior or an appearance in arbitrary, non-binding terms. Characterized in no way belongs in patents, i.e., in the claims section of a patent, where every word counts, and often limits the scope of the invention, and often the intellectual rights of the inventor.

The claims section is the crucial centerpiece of a patent, staking out the inventor's territory in the land of similar inventions.

The seemingly rigid structure of the powerful claims section will explained later. The thrust of the overall patent sytarts with the background section.

BACKGROUND

A typical language for the section must contain passages closely structured around the following:

The application claims the benefit of priority from provisional U.S. Patent Application Serial No. zz/xxx,yyy filed Mmm. xx, YYYY which is expressly incorporated herein by reference. (if the full application is based on a provisional (informal, loossly written, filed less than 12 months prior to furnishing the patent application) application) and/or

The unexpected and advantageous results achieved from creating customized voice processing systems which are adaptable to new voice processing applications, when confronted with particular customer demands, are extraordinary in light of the present state of the art.

and/or

An illustrative example will provide to those with skill in the art an appreciation of the magnitude of this problem.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

While the Claims section is the legalistic support column of the patent, the technical description must start with a formal disclosure of the invention. Since the Claims language is legal, the language thereof precludes it from describing the invention to the general public.

The disclosure begins with the Summary of the Invention, and these guidelines for power passages:

Satisfaction of the above-referenced long-felt needs in the art is accomplished by the present invention, which provides an application development environment that allows customization of integrated voice processing systems

Maybe the next time the Claims section would be explained in more detail.