Emotions, selling stocks, testing drinks not patentable

UNITED STATES CREDIT SYSTEM v. AMERICAN CREDIT (53 F. 818 [January 1893]) Business method for using an insurance plan form is not novel. Methods of transacting common business do not seem to be patentable as an art. HOCKE v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. (122 F. 467 [April 1903]) Obvious business shipping method is not patentable. HOTEL SECURITY CHECKING v. LORRAINE CO. (160 F. 467 [March 1908]) Business method without implementation means is not a patentable art. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS v. UNIVERSAL FILM (243 U.S. 871 [April 1917]) Patent on motion picture projector cannot be used to restrict which motion pictures are shown on projector. DUNN WIRE-CUT LUG BRICK v. TORONTO FIRE CLAY (259 F 258 [January 1919]) The inventor or a new and useful product or article of manufacture may have a patent covering it and giving a monopoly upon it, regardless of great variations in the method of making. BOGGS v. ROBERTSON (13 USPQ 214 [June 1931]) An idea reduced to writing (printed matter), is not patentable. GREENEWALT v. STANLEY COMPANY OF AMERICA (54 F.2d 195 [January 1932]) Aesthetic or emotional special effects are not patentable. NESTLE-LE MUR v. EUGENE LTD. (55 F.2d 854 [February 1932]) "Machine" is device or combination of devices by means of which energy can be utilized for useful operation to be performed. Patents for machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter differ fundamentally in nature from "process" patents. Process may be protected and patented only as a process. IN re WAIT (73 F.2d 982 [December 1934]) Non-novel sale of stocks and commodities business method not patentable. AFFILIATED ENTERPRISES v. GRUBER ET AL. (86 F.2d 958 [December 1936]) Lottery business method is a system not copyrightable. IN re PATTON (127 F.2d 324 [April 1942]) A system of transacting business, or an abstract idea or theory, apart from means of effectuating it, is not patentable. IN re RICE (132 F.2d 140 [December 1942]) Printed/graphical instructions for playing a piano not patentable. EX PARTE S (1943 J.P.O.S. 905 [August 1943]) Music on phonographic record is analogous to printed matter and not patentable. IN re BENNER and Mcmullen (174 F.2d 938 [April 1949]) Patentable slight alteration must be more than mechanical/professional skill. DAVISON CHEMICAL v. JOLIET CHEMICALS (179 F.2d 793 [March 1950]) Only useful application of law of nature or scientific fact is a patentable method. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM v. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS (180 F.2d 26 [January 1950]) Method of testing consumer beverage preferences not patentable.

USPTO forces patent examiners to issue dumb rejections

Patent lawyer John Starsiak, in an online article with Genetic Engineering News (http://www.genengnews.com/blog/item.aspx?id=419) makes an interesting observation: Virtually all of the problems of the U.S. Patent system, including the high cost of obtaining a patent can be attributed to examiners issuing improper "bogus" rejections. While I know this is true from my experience as a patent examiner, ... Nice confirmation from a former examiner. ... I performed a survey {using the PTO's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system} of the 50 most recently issued patents classified in Class 435, Chemistry: Molecular Biology and Microbiology. In 76% of these patents, the examiner indicated in the first Office action that there was no allowable subject matter, i.e. none of the claims are patentable. Are the abilities of patent attorneys so low that over 75% of patent applications as filed do not contain at least one allowable claim? Or are the examiners writing "bogus" rejections? The answer is the latter. Currently a "culture of rejection" controls the operation of the PTO. Good questions. Congress should have a hearing on excessive rejections.

Claim language skimps on words but projects scope-grabbing power

comprising is used only once in each claim. Only in the preamble is it not exclusive.

(The preamble is a legally non-binding part of a claim, by the way:

2. The channel system containing a converter and a hashing module, the system associated with said external display device....

The channel system containing a converter and a hashing module, the system

is a preamble, the rest is the body of the claim)

Instead of is we use including or having

(For example:

...said display device is a liquid crystal display...

should be

...said device having a liquid crystal display...)

As a matter of principle, any language used in a claim should be non-restrictive because you a patent examiner is free to interpret each word as limiting, hence is may restrict the device to be the liquid display only, and contain nothing else.

The term means is used as as little as possible.

It is indefinite and implies a potential and not a structural element.

…designed and configured to…is for device claims:

..the device having the means for said lever...

should be

...the device designed and configured to attach said lever...

– in method claims instead of means, we use for [action]

the device provided with means for registration of...

should be

the device provided for registering...

notice that registering is consistent with the method language, which requires action verbs(registering, associating, calculating, opening, admitting) and not abstract nouns (registration).

Isn't this easy?