PRODUCT EVALUATION
Software and the Prior Art
I. The Genesis of Patent Protection for Software
Beginning in the early 1970's, the development of software began to accelerate at an amazing rate. The advances in hardware and the "unbundling" of software from hardware by manufacturers gave rise to the software industry. The rapid growth of software development gave rise to questions regarding the protection available, as software development is a time consuming and expensive task, companies wanted to protect their advancements.
At first, this protection was achieved merely through trade secret. Algorithms would be buried within the unannotated code, where novel functions might be hidden from prying eyes. Congress sought to provide stability by bringing software under copyright protection. Copyright protection stems automatically from the act of fixation of a work onto a tangible medium. Copyrights can be used to prevent others from copying the software program, either through direct duplication or through appropriation of the software's expressive elements. fn1 This has been sufficient to protect the code itself, but left the status of protection for the functionality and design of a program unclear.
The courts have also grappled with the problems associated with granting patent protection for software. In 1972, the Supreme Court held that a computer program, a mathematical formula without substantial application except in connection with a digital computer, was not a patentable process. fn2 The court felt that the patentability of software was something to be decided upon by Congress, as it was considered to be a policy matter.
The Supreme Court again approached the question of patentability of formulas or algorithms in 1978, and again were hostile. fn3 By 1981, the hard-line had softened somewhat, as the court held that a patent to an otherwise patentable process does not lose its eligibility for patent protection simply because it uses a computer program or a digital computer. fn4 In fact, recent decisions have called into question copyright protection for the "method of operation" of software. fn5
The patentability of software is now well settled. With In re Alappat fn6, an en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it was held that a computer operating pursuant to software may represent patentable subject matter, as a general purpose computer becomes, in effect, a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions -- a new machine patentable under 35 USC § 101. fn7 Recent decisions of the Federal Circuit fn8 have compelled the PTO to "advise its examining corps that 'computer programs embodied in a tangible medium, such as floppy diskette, are patentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101 and must be examined under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103.'" fn9
II. The PTO's Problem With Software Patents
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has come under considerable criticism from members of the software industry for issuing broad, non-technical patents. These patents issue which, to many in the software industry, do not appear to meet the statutory mandates of novelty and non obviousness. fn10 Determining whether a claimed invention is novel and non-obvious is done against the backdrop of the prior art . The PTO's database of prior art is usually developed over the years from the patent applications themselves. In the case of software patents, however, this database has been slow to accumulate, as patent protection was not sought during the early period of development in the industry.
The software industry developed as a commercial phenomenon; despite the theoretical work done in computer science and computer engineering, software developers have, from the outset, sought to solve problems that existed in industry. Unlike other disciplines with long established histories of publication, the software developers both felt little pressure to disseminate their techniques widely, and had few journals in which to publish. What information distribution existed was relatively informal.
Given this scenario, coupled with the early uncertainty about whether software would be eligible for patent or copyright protection (or neither), it is easy to comprehend why the PTO has had such trouble dealing with developing their prior art files. While software patents date back to the early seventies, they were too few in number to generate a significant prior art database.
An example by way of contrast; consider the rapid development of the biotechnological arts - this industry exploded upon the scene and began to demand patent protection. Unlike computer science, this field had a close connection to its parental arts, fields which had a great deal of easily accessible prior art. The result was the avoidance of many overly broad patents issuing which would be obvious given the prior art.
Each of the statutory requirements (of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness) are evaluated in light of the prior art to determine whether the invention is new, and that it is not obvious to a person familiar with the technical field of the invention. As you can plainly see, without access to the prior art in a readily searchable format, some inventions will be allowed to issue as patents when they fail to meet the appropriate criteria. There is significant concern that this indeed is what has happened to date with a number of software patents.
The debate came to a head over the issuance of patent number 5,241,671 in 1993 to Compton's Multimedia for a "Multimedia search system using a plurality of entry means which indicate the inter relatedness of information." The multimedia developers created a furor, claiming that the patent was too broad, that is was an obvious extension of existing technology, and that it was not new. The pressure from the industry culminated in the Commissioner of Patent and Trademarks, Bruce Lehman, ordering a re-examination of the patent. The PTO accepted third party material during re-examination, and concluded that the claims were indeed unpatentable.
III. A Very Brief Narrative of Prior Art
The range of applicable prior art includes, but is not limited too, journals, technical reports, university these, books, government reports, conferences and proceedings, sales literature, electronic databases, internal technical manuals, reference works, bulletins, software, public knowledge, public use, sales activities, and prior invention by another. Some would even argue that hardware configurations are applicable prior art for software, as circuits can now easily be converted into software algorithms. In the case of "publications" (i.e., anything capable of wide dissemination, including electronic documents), the document must be made available to the portion of the general public that is interested in the document's subject matter.
Note that these sources may be obscure, but as long as they are indexed in such a way as to be found by someone interested in the subject matter, they will generally meet the statutory requirement. Note also that this includes the internet, now a rich source of possible prior art; "[o]nce a trade secret is posted on the internet, it is effectively part of the public domain, impossible to retrieve." fn11
Prior art is important not only during the examination, but also during re-examination challenges, infringement lawsuits, and for the information disclosure statement included with the application (which requires the applicant to disclose all prior art that the applicant has knowledge of, and which is material to the examination of the application.)
IV. Proposed and Discussed Changes
In 1992, the Office of Technology Assessment reported to Congress that changes in the current law were advisable to adequately protect computer software. fn12 The report, "Finding a Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual Property and the Challenge of Technological Age," highlighted suggestions for the PTO, including: (a) addressing the extent to which processes implemented in software are protectable; (b) excluding software-related inventions from patent law and create a sui generis protection within a special framework with a shorter term, lower criteria for inventiveness, and/or special exceptions from infringement; (c) improving the quality of non-patent prior art files available to examiners; and (d) publishing applications within 18 months of filing, regardless of status. fn13
Many of these topics were addressed in 1994, by speakers attending public hearings called by the PTO to discuss issues associated with the patenting of software-related inventions. The Business Software Alliance forwarded proposals at the February, 1994 hearings in Arlington VA, including: (1) fixed term of patent protection from date of filing; (2) improving the quality of the prior art databases and training of examiners; (3) encouraging applicants to conduct a patentability search prior to filing, and providing the results to the PTO prior to examination; (4) establishing an opposition procedure with provisions to ensure expedited results, and (5) expanding re-examination to include non-prior art validity issues (e.g. inequitable conduct).
[The text of these hearings is available at the PTO's web site.
Most at the hearings favored the retention of patent protection for software over the institution of a special system of protection, such as suggested by the OTA. Commentators also stressed that the requirements for patentability of software should not differ from the standards in other industries, and most also supported the provisions of a fixed term from filing, and publication of applications at a fixed time after filing.
Many of these issues have already been addressed by the PTO. In response to these hearings, Commissioner Lehman began to take steps toward the goal of improving the overall quality of issued patents by creating an electronic information center in examining group 2300 to improve their collections of, and access to, software prior art. Also, changes in the PTO's hiring practices will now enable the PTO to bring in computer scientists as examiners for group 2300. The PTO has also instituted new guidelines for the examination of computer implemented inventions. fn14
The patent term for all patents has been amended, as part of the global patent harmonization efforts, and now runs from issuance to a date 20 years from filing. fn15 Also, a bill has been introduced in Congress which would result in the publishing of all applications 18 months after filing. fn16 These changes are likely to alleviate some pressure on the examining corps, as greater access to non-patent prior art, as well as examiners with greater computer science expertise, will reduce the likelihood of overly broad patents issuing.
V. Efforts by the Industry
The software industry, with encouragement from the PTO, OTA, CBEMA, AIPLA, and others has formed the Software Patent Institute, an independent non-profit corporation. Part of their mission is the development of an on-line database of descriptions of software technology so that the patent office, the software industry, and the general public can know what is already invented. SPI works to get the background that the PTO needs to accurately evaluate the patent applications it receives. This database is already being used by the PTO. Some of this material, which is being submitted by industry members, may not qualify as prior art until cataloged in this database however, as it may not have been adequately published. (See infra, VI.)
Expect lobbying to continue for expedited re-examination hearings, as third party challengers to patents might have the appropriate prior art to invalidate a patent, as well as an interest in seeing a patent drawn to prior art invalidated. It seems that much of the concern in the industry stems from a fear of "submarine patents," broad patents that have either languished at the PTO or have been continued in a variety of ways and then issue many years after the filing date -- to the great surprise of an industry that has developed using the technology patented, and can no longer design around. The owner of the patent then demands licensing royalties from those using the patented elements. Such was the scenario surrounding the Compton Multimedia patent.
VI. A Balancing of Considerations
In 1995, 6142 patents software patents issued, accumulating to an estimated 25,000 to date. fn17 Some in the software industry contend that there could never be that many patentable inventions in the industry, given the prior art. Despite that visceral impression of the figures, one must keep in mind that the patent statutes requirements for prior art are discussed in great depth in the case law, and many elements must be satisfied before a reference becomes a statutory bar, that is, not just any scribbling on a napkin over lunch can bar the issuance of a patent. Below are paraphrased many of the considerations which broadly come under the term "prior art:"
-To be a printed publication, the reference applied by the examiner must have been publicly accessible.
-A reference is available as prior art on the date the public first had access to it.
-The references applied by the examiner must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the subject matter the PTO cites.
-Knowledge by others is prior art only if it is public and sufficiently enabling.
-To prove a public use, the examiner must show the use occurred before the critical date in the United States and was not secret or private.
-A public use (or a sales activity) is not prior art if it's purpose is to ensure that the invention works for its intended purpose (experimental use exception).
-An invention is only "on sale" if there is a firm offer to sell or an actual sale, and if the invention is sufficiently reduced to practice.
-To support a rejection under 35 USC s 102(g), the PTO must present evidence that the claimed invention was first made by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it.
-An inventor can prove an earlier date of invention with proper proof of dates and diligence.
-To establish derivation of the claimed invention from another, the PTO must present evidence that the applicant actually was aware of the work of the other person before conceiving the invention.
-The PTO must determine the scope of the prior art by considering the art as a whole.
-An examiner may not rely on inherent properties of a prior art reference unless these properties are the natural and necessary result of practicing the prior art.
-An examiner need not initially provide evidence of facts notoriously well known in the art, but if challenged, the examiner must provide evidence that the fact is well known.
(For a further discussion of any of these points, see this excellent article. fn18)
Concern has also been raised regarding the manner in which the Compton patent was re-examined. Although it is within the Commissioner's power to request the re-examination fn19, such re-examination is to be limited to instances where there is a general public policy question at issue, and there is no interest by "any other person." fn20 Questions have been raised about the propriety of such a request, and it is conceivable that the request from the Commissioner for re-examination placed undue pressure upon the examiners, who then felt compelled to overturn the patent. In the re-examination proceeding, the PTO accepted prior art citations from third parties, comprising three U.S. patent documents, one foreign patent document, and nine other printed publications. fn21 The PTO examined the patent in light of the submitted prior art, with Assistant Commissioner for Patents, Stephen G. Kunin, issuing a decision in which the patentability of all claims was called into question.
VII. Unethical Conduct?
Greg Aharonian, of the Internet Patent News Service, has opined that the "behaviour on the part of many software patent lawyers, especially those from big computing companies with plenty of resources to apply to prior art [is] unethical." fn22 Mr. Aharonian claims that fully half the software patents issued in 1995 cited no non-patent prior art, and that this was done in an effort to "exploit the PTO's weaknesses." fn23
In fact, the Code of Federal Regulations fn24 and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure fn25 both discuss the requirements of the Information Disclosure Statement in which the individuals involved in the preparation of a patent application have a duty to submit information which is material to the patentability of the subject matter, however, there is no requirement that an applicant for a patent make a patentability search.
VIII. Epilogue
Given that software is now statutory subject matter for patent protection (although visit the League for Programming Freedom for a negative view toward software patents), that the development of the non-patent prior art files has begun, and that statutory changes have taken effect, what are the concerns for the future? For those who are seeking patent protection, you should brace yourself for opposition to patents with any breadth. Indeed, you may want to make yourself familiar with the Software Patent Institute's database, as examiner scrutiny is likely to remain high. Those involved in the software industry who fear the issuance of more Compton-like patents should continue to lobby for improved re-examination proceedings, but be wary of re-examinations at the request of the Commissioner, as they may be unduly influenced by politics. With the changes already instituted and the focus on the PTO's examiner corps, the worst is likely over.
The reader assumes all liability for reliance on any information contained in this document.
ENDNOTES
2. Gottschalk v. Benson, 93 S.Ct. 253, 175 USPQ 673 (1972).
3. Parker v. Flook, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 198 USPQ 193 (1978).
4. Diamond v. Diehr, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 209 USPQ (1981).
5. Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807, 34 USPQ.2d 1014 (1995) (Finding the menu command hierarchy for a computer spreadsheet uncopyrightable; Affirmed per curiam by an equally divided Supreme Court, 116 S.Ct. 804 (1996).)
6. 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ.2d 1545 (1994).
7. See also In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357 (CCPA, 1973), and Arrhythmia Research Technology v Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
8. See In Re Lowry 32 F.3d 1579, 32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1031 (1994).
9. 50 PTCJ 149 (See In Re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1383 (1995)., 50 PTCJ 56; (a motion to the Federal Circuit to dismiss Beauregard's appeal of a Board of Patent Appeals rejection.)
10. 35 U.S.C. § 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g) before the applicant's invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Current through P.L. 104-133, approved 4-25-96
35 U.S.C. § 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
(b) [Section relating to biotechnology ommitted.]
(c) Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Current through P.L. 104-133, approved 4-25-96
11. Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 908 F.Supp. 1362, 1368 (E.D. Va. 1995).
14. I. Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Implemented Inventions
A. General Considerations
The following guidelines have been developed to assist Office personnel in their review of applications drawn to computer-implemented inventions. These guidelines respond to recent changes in the law that governs the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, and set forth the official policy of the Office regarding inventions in this field of technology.
It is essential that patent applicants obtain a prompt yet complete examination of their applications. The Office can best achieve this goal by raising any issue that may affect patentability in the initial action on the merits. Under the principles of compact prosecution, each claim should be reviewed for compliance with every statutory requirement of patentability in the initial review of the application, even if one or more claims is found to be deficient with respect to one statutory requirement. Deficiencies should be explained clearly, particularly when they serve as a basis of a rejection. Where possible, examiners should indicate how rejections may be overcome and problems resolved. A failure to follow this approach can lead to unnecessary delays in the prosecution of the application.
B. Procedures To Be Followed When Evaluating Computer-Implemented Inventions
The following procedures should be used when reviewing applications drawn to computer-implemented inventions.
1. Determine what the applicant has invented by reviewing the written description and the claims.
(a) Identify any specific embodiments of the invention that have been disclosed, review the detailed descripton of the invention and note the specific utility that has been asserted for the invention.
(b) Analyze each claim carefully, correlating each claim element to the relevant portion of the written description that describes that element. Give claim elements their broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the written description. If elements of a claimed invention are defined in means plus function format, review the written description to identify the specific structure, materials or acts that correspond to each such element.
(c) Considering each claim as a whole, classify the invention defined by each claim as to its statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Rely on the following presumptions in making this classification.
(i) A computer or other programmable apparatus whose actions are directed by a computer program or other form of "software" is a statutory "machine."
(ii) A computer-readable memory that can be used to direct a computer to function in a particular manner when used by the computer [1] is a statutory "article of manufacture".
(iii) A series of specific operational steps to be performed on or with the aid of a computer is a statutory "process".
A claim that clearly defines a computer-implemented process but is not cast as an element of a computer-readable memory or as implemented on a computer should be classified as a statutory "process." [2] If an applicant responds to an action of the Office based on this classification by asserting that subject matter claimed in this format is a machine or an article of manufacture, reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for failing to recite at least one physical element in the claims that would otherwise place the invention in either of these two "product" categories. The Examiner should also object to the specification under 37 CFR 1.71(b) if such an assertion is made, as the complete invention contemplated by the applicant has not been cast precisely as being an invention within one of the statutory categories.
A claim that defines an invention as any of the following subject matter should be classified as non-statutory.
-a compilation or arrangement of data, independent of any physical element;
-a known machine-readable storage medium that is encoded with data representing creative or artistic expression (e.g., a work of music, art or literature) [3], [4];
-a "data structure" independent of any physical element (i.e., not as implemented on a physical component of a computer such as a computer-readable memory to render that component capable of causing a computer to operate in a particular manner); or
-a process that does nothing more than manipulate abstract ideas or concepts (e.g., a process consisting solely of the steps one would follow in solving a mathematical problem [5]).
Claims in this form are indistinguishable from abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena and may not be patented. Non-statutory claims should be handled in the manner described in section (2)(c) below.
2. Analyze each claim to determine if it complies with § 112, second paragraph, and with § 112, first paragraph.
(a) Determine if the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. To do this, compare the invention as claimed to the invention as it has been described in the specification. Pay particular attention to the specific utility contemplated for the invention-features or elements of the invention that are necessary to provide the specific utility contemplated for that invention must be reflected in the claims. If the claims fail to accurately define the invention, they should be rejected under § 112, second paragraph. A failure to limit the claim to reflect features of the invention that are necessary to impart the specific utility contemplated may also create a deficiency under § 112, first paragraph.
If elements of a claimed invention are defined using "means plus function" language, but it is unclear what structure, materials or acts are intended to correspond to those elements, reject the claim under § 112, second paragraph. A rejection imposed on this basis shifts the burden to the applicant to describe the specific structure, material or acts that correspond to the means element in question, and to identify the precise location in the specification where a description of that means element can be found. Interpretation of means elements for § 112, second paragraph purposes must be consistent with interpretation of such elements for §§ 102 and 103 purposes.
Computer program-related elements of a computer-implemented [6] invention may serve as the specific structure, material or acts that correspond to an element of an invention defined using a means plus function limitation. For example, a series of operations performed by a computer under the direction of a computer program may serve as "specific acts" that correspond to a means element. Similarly, a computer-readable memory encoded with data representing a computer program that can cause a computer to function in a particular fashion, or a component of a computer that has been reconfigured with a computer program to operate in a particular fashion, can serve as the "specific structure" corresponding to a means element.
Claims must be defined using the English language. See, 37 CFR 1.52(a). A computer programming language is not the English language, despite the fact that English words may be used in that language. Thus, an applicant may not use computer program code, in either source or object format, to define the metes and bounds of a claim. A claim which attempts to define elements of an invention using computer program code, rather than the functional steps which are to be performed, should be rejected under § 112, second paragraph, and should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.52(a).
(b) Construe the scope of the claimed invention to determine if it is adequately supported by an enabling disclosure. Construe any element defined in means plus function language to encompass all reasonable equivalents of the specific structure, material or acts disclosed in the specification corresponding to that means element. Special care should be taken to ensure that each claim complies with the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
(c) A claim as a whole that defines non-statutory subject matter is deficient under § 101, and under § 112, second paragraph. Determining the scope of a claim as a whole requires a clear understanding of what the applicant regards as the invention. The review performed in step 1 should be used to gain this understanding.
(i) If the invention as disclosed in the written description is statutory, but the claims define subject matter that is not, the deficiency can be corrected by an appropriate claim amendment. Therefore, reject the claims under §§ 101 and 112, second paragraph, but identify the features of the invention that, if recited in the claim, would render the claimed subject matter statutory.
(ii) If the invention, both as disclosed and as claimed, is not statutory subject matter, reject the claims under § 101 for being drawn to non-statutory subject matter, and under § 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim an invention entitled to protection under U.S. patent law.
An invention is not statutory if it falls within any of the non-statutory claim categories outlined in section (1)(c) above. Also, in rare situations, a claim classified as a statutory machine or article of manufacture may define non-statutory subject matter. Non-statutory subject matter (i.e., abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena) does not become statutory merely through a different form of claim presentation. Such a claim will (a) define the "invention" not through characteristics of the machine or article of manufacture claimed but exclusively in terms of a non-statutory process that is to be performed on or using that machine or article of manufacture, and (b) encompass any product in the stated class (e.g., computer, computer-readable memory) configured in any manner to perform that process.
3. Determine if the claimed invention is novel and nonobvious under §§ 102 and 103. When evaluating claims defined using "means plus function" language, refer to the specific guidance provided in the In re Donaldson guidelines [1162 OG 59] and section (3)(a) above.
C. Notes on the Guidelines
[1] Articles of manufacture encompassed by this definition consist of two elements: (1) a computer-readable storage medium, such as a memory device, a compact disc or a floppy disk, and (2) the specific physical configuration of the substrate of the computer-readable storage medium that represents data (e.g., a computer program), where the storage medium so configured causes a computer to operate in a specific and predefined manner. The composite of the two elements is a storage medium with a particular physical structure and function (e.g., one that will impart the functionality represented by the data onto a computer).
[2] For example, a claim that is cast as "a computer program" but which then recites specific steps to be implemented on or using a computer should be classified as a "process." A claim to simply a "computer program" that does not define the invention in terms of specific steps to be performed on or using a computer should not be classified as a statutory process.
[3] The specific words or symbols that constitute a computer program represent the expression of the computer program and as such are a literary creation.
[4] A claim in this format should also be rejected under § 103, as being obvious over the known machine-readable storage medium standing alone.
[5] A claim to a method consisting solely of the steps necessary to converting one set of numbers to another set of numbers without reciting any computer-implemented steps would be a non-statutory claim under this definition.
[6] This includes the software and any associated computer hardware that is necessary to perform the functions directed by the software.
15. 35 U.S.C. § 154. Contents and term of patent
(2) Term.--Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of this title, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.
16. 1995 US H.B. 1733 (SN) (Last action: 05/25/95 introduced to House Committee on Judiciary.)
17. Statistics provided by the Internet Patent News Service.
18. E. Robert Yoches & Terry S. Callaghan, The Next Battle: New Forms of Software Prior Art, 2 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 115 (1994).
21. 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 379, 392.
22. Internet Newsgroup Message: PATNEWS: Software patenting chaos continues; Author:
srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian); Date: 1995/05/03; Organization: The World Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
24. 37 CFR §§ 1.56, 1.97, 1.98
This Document was prepared by Albert Ubieta; any and all comments are welcome.
Return to the FPLC IP Mall
© 1996 Franklin Pierce Law Center. All Rights Reserved.
Site construction by Bill Shaw.