Source: https://www.patentdocs.org/2019/06/uspto-presentation-on-evaluating-computer-implemented-functional-claiming-under-35-usc-112.html?cid=6a00d83451ca1469e20240a4b5876e200b
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 01:18:01
Document Index: 515336026

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§101', '§112']

Patent Docs: USPTO Presentation on Evaluating Computer-Implemented Functional Claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112
« Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Holds Hearings on Proposed Revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 | Main | FTC to the Rescue Regarding High Drug Prices and Patents »
Posted at 10:25 PM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink
"training a neural network to recognized handwritten numbers""
As broad as this claim is, in practice it would probably be even broader to cover something like:
"1. training a model to recognize a parameter of an input"
2. wherein the parameter is a corresponding number, and the input is digital copy of a human written paper" or something
Software drafters have brought this on themselves.
Also, I may be in the minority, but I dont see the 112(f) draft changes meaning much.Even without touching the law, the Federal Circuit is already going in that direction pretty clearly. Not sure that the draft changes actually change anything at this point.
Posted by: JPosner | June 19, 2019 at 06:48 AM
"[T]he Federal Circuit has raised issues with broad, functional claiming... without adequate support in the context of both § 112 and § 101. The USPTO's position is that these problems can be addressed by properly applying § 112."
The USPTO is quite correct. The overwhelming majority of that which is presently treated as a §101 issue under Alice would be more cogently treated as a §112 issue under Ariad.
Posted by: Greg DeLassus | June 19, 2019 at 11:37 AM
"Even without touching the law, the Federal Circuit is already going in that direction pretty clearly. Not sure that the draft changes actually change anything at this point."
I do not really disagree with you here, but I think that there is significance in the Congress signalling to the CAFC "we agree with what you are doing here." It is not nothing for the CAFC to receive positive feedback from the legislature. At the very least, it locks in the current trend, so that a new en banc majority does not take back what the Williamson en banc majority just gave.
Posted by: Greg DeLassus | June 19, 2019 at 12:08 PM