Patrick Elliott wrote:
> which is that such things are, "obvious to those skilled 
> in the art and hence unpatentable". 

Except they're not always, and it's not the patent examiner's job to say 
whether some *other* expert asked the same question would invent the same 
invention.

> "Sorry, but even if this is a blindingly obvious solution for people 
> that know how the machine works, its still patentable."

That's fine, but that's not really what the patent examiner looks at. Again, 
"obvious" has a technical legal definition that does *not* mean "anyone 
skilled in the art would have thought about this if asked."

Was RSA or Diffie-Helman "obvious"?  Was First Virtual "obvious"?  Both 
pretty much astounded the experts in the field, all of whom thought it was 
impossible to do such a thing at all.

Hell, I have a patent just issued on how to print different receipts on a 
credit card terminal depending on what you just bought.  It was damned 
obvious to me, but after talking to three manufacturers of terminals and 
asking how to do it and getting back "there's no way to do that on our brand 
of terminals", we figured it wasn't nearly so obvious to the experts in the 
field as it seemed.

> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?

OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.

If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
improved the television?

> I am sure I linked the groklaw page talking about this some place, but 
> maybe I didn't..
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785
> 

"""

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message