Supreme Court Reins-In Patent Venue
12 hours ago
A computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, direct a printer to:
receive a print job ticket that references one or more print job elements, each of the print job elements containing contents that enable generation of a printable document;
examine the contents of the one or more print job elements to determine if one or more of the print job elements is already present in a local memory of the printer; and
ascertain a location in the local memory of the printer to store any of the one or more print job elements that do not already exist in the local memory.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 using 101. The Examiner reasoned that “[t]he computer program product claimed is merely a set of instructions per se. Since the computer program is merely a set of instructions not embodied on a computer readable medium to realize the computer program functionality, the claimed subject matter is non-statutory.”
Printer 100 may include a firmware component 110 that is implemented as a permanent memory module stored on ROM 106. Firmware 110 is programmed and tested like software, and is distributed with printer 100. Firmware 100 can be implemented to coordinate operations of the hardware within printer 100 and contains programming constructs used to perform such operations.The Panel began with providing definitions for a machine and a manufacture. As we have seen before, the definition of a machine comes from Nuitjen and is "is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." The definition of a manufacture also comes from Nuitjen and is "(in its verb form) is defined as the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery."
A method for wireless bonding of devices and communicating media file transfer parameters, the method comprising:Claim 24 recites:
monitoring, at a master device, an area of interest for the presence of potential bondable devices;
receiving, at the master device, a presence signal from a potential bondable device;
determining bond capability of the potential bondable device;
approving the potential bondable device as a bonded device; and
communicating, from the master device to the bonded device, media file transfer parameters, including definition of the media file metadata that is to be included with a captured media file.
A method for communicating media files and associated media file metadata from a bonded device to a master device, the method comprising:The Examiner originally rejected the claims under 101 using the "useful, concrete, and tangible result" test. The Board applied Bilski. Its entire analysis was:
bonding one or more slave devices to a master device according to predetermined media file transfer parameters communicated to the slave device from the master device; and
communicating a plurality of media files from the one or more bonded devices to the master device, the plurality of media files having metadata information as defined by the predetermined media file transfer parameters.
The steps of claims 14 and 24 are performed by a master device or a bondable/bonded slave device. As argued by the Appellants, for example, the independent claims include 'communicating information between the master device and the bonded device.' Therefore, the methods recited in independent claims 14 and 24 are each tied to a particular machine or apparatus.Result: 101 rejection reversed.
Claim 1. A text to XML transformer, comprising:
a transformer program having a plurality of compound statement [sic, statements]; and
a processor for executing the transformer program and converting an input text document into an XML document wherein the XML document does not contain every element that was in the input text.
Claim 14. A process for converting text to XML, comprising the steps of:
a) defining a transformer program having a plurality of compound statements, wherein one of the plurality
of compound statements contains a command that matches a regular expression and takes an action;
b) receiving a text stream;
c) executing the transformer program to convert the text stream into an XML stream.
Claim 19. A text to XML transformer, comprising:The Examiner rejected each of these claims under 101. The Examiner reasoned that “[t]he claimed invention is directed to a transformer program (independent claims 1 and 14) or a transformer document (independent claim 19) that is executed by a processor.
a wizard for creating a transformer document;
the transformer document having a plurality of compound statements formed by a text to XML computer language; and
a processor for executing the transformer document and converting an input text document into an XML document.
There does not appear to be anything special about the processor:In the end, the Board reasoned that because claims 1 and 19 cover any and every possible digital computer for executing the transformer program these claims fall outside the scope of 101.
The XML transformer 10 has a processor 12 that executes a transformer program 14 that has a plurality of executable statements or script 15.
Spec. 5:4-6. The Specification does not disclose a new hardware design. The processor is not in means-plus-function format, but even if it was, the only structure shown is a block diagram of a processor that would include any and every possible processor for performing the functions.
The recited communications system is a particular machine that transmits data on a digital subscriber line. The claimed machine is, therefore, tailored to DSL applications. Moreover, the recited DSL communications system is programmed or configured to provide a PSD mask for spectral shaping a DBM mode downstream transmission defined by a specific equation. Thus, the recited DSL communication system is not a general purpose computer but a particular or special purpose machine.In the end, it appears that the panel was convinced that claim 1 did not pre-exempt “the use of any apparatus employing the combination of mathematical calculations recited.” Said another way, it appears that the Board was impressed with the fact that claimed PSD could be used in other communications systems and applications. It appears that Board took the view that claims at issue only cover DSL systems.