"Is the BPAI being consistent in their application of Bilski?"
Please vote to the right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is focused on discussing decisions from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("the BPAI") and other interesting happenings at the United States Patent Office.
Subscribe Now
Subscribe via email
About Me
- Leigh J. Martinson
- Leigh J. Martinson is a registered patent attorney. Leigh focuses his practice on strategic patent portfolio management and complex patent litigation in the areas of analog circuitry, digital circuitry, computer hardware, software, optics, medical devices, RFID technologies, packet and circuit telecommunications, wireless communications, business methods and internet technologies.
Blog Archive
Labels
- 101 (16)
- 103 (3)
- 112 (2)
- 112-6 (2)
- algorithm (2)
- Appeals (1)
- Beauregard (4)
- Bilski (9)
- BPAI (4)
- computer readable medium (2)
- continuous (1)
- dictionary (1)
- guidelinds (1)
- guidelines (1)
- indefiniteness (2)
- Interferences (1)
- KSR (1)
- lexicographer (1)
- machine (6)
- means-plus-function (2)
- Memo (1)
- memory (1)
- Nuijten (4)
- Nuitjen (1)
- obviousness (1)
- packet (1)
- Patent (1)
- precedental (1)
- processor (2)
- PTO (1)
- Remand (1)
- reversed (2)
- signal (1)
- software (5)
- system (1)
- transformation (1)
My Blog List
-
-
Aiding Abstraction8 years ago
-
Technorati
Why Monitor the BPAI?
One key component to a company's IP strategy is patent acquisition. The last stop for an application is often the BPAI. I believe that identifying trends within the Board can be helpful to increase your success rate on Appeal.
They are consistently rejecting claims citing the machine/transformation test in Bilski, but they are very confused as to whether Beauregard claims should be rejected. Some are ruled patentable, some are rejected sua sponte, and some are ignored (i.e. not challenged sua sponte).
ReplyDelete