No squirrels today. Just good ol’ 101 fun.
Several strong candidates to choose from, courtesy of our old friends at B of A, HP, Goldman Sachs, along with a couple newcomers. Key terms are underlined:
U.S. Patent No. 7,493,262 Method for valuing intellectual property
Assignee: Syracuse University 1. A method of calculating the value of a license for an intellectual property asset between a licensor and a licensee using a data processing system, comprising the steps of: calculating a minimum value of said license to said licensor using said data processing system; calculating a maximum value of said license to a licensee using said data processing system; calculating a net value of said license by subtracting said minimum value from said maximum value using said data processing system; determining a licensor investment in said license based on said net value and said minimum value using said data processing system; determining a licensee investment in said license based on said net value and said maximum value using said data processing system; and calculating a lump-sum equal return payment which provides an equal percentage rate of return to said licensor and said licensee on said licensor investment and said licensee investment in said license using said data processing system; and displaying said lump-sum equal return payment using said data processing system. |
Commentary: Boy, do I feel for Mark Halligan. Recall that Halligan had his claimed method for identifying trade secrets invalidated by the BPAI under Bilski. That was in November 2008. Here, the Orangemen (I know, I know…I’m a nickname purist) have been granted a patent with claims that flunk not only Bilski, but probably Comiskey, too (it looks like the data processing system is completely unnecessary, in that all these steps could be performed as “mental processes”). And this is a post-Bilski, post-Halligan allowance (12-26-08). From a 101 perspective this claim looks just like Halligan’s claim. Even worse, Syracuse added all those “using said data processing system” limitations in order to overcome a 101 rejection from July 2008, which satisfied the Examiner. Looks like somebody just missed the memo.
Goldman Sachs had a similarly crafted post-Bilski allowed patent issue today, as well (7,493,278), with method steps of “obtaining, at the computer system,…”, “calculating, with the computer system,...”, “recording, with the computer system,…”. Not very particular. 101 was never at issue there, however.
The most interesting of the bunch today belongs to Bank of America:
| U.S. Patent No. 7,493,282 System and method for automated account management Assignee: Bank of America 1. A method of managing bulk bank accounts associated with a plurality of real estate transactions, comprising: receiving from a real estate office instructions to open a set of new escrow accounts, close a first set of open escrow accounts, and update a second set of open escrow accounts, associated with real estate transactions for a plurality of clients of the real estate office, the instructions being received electronically, at a financial institution, together in a batch file; automatically populating a bank account management system, by the financial institution, with batch processing information provided in the instructions; automatically establishing the set of new escrow accounts consistent with the batch processing information; automatically closing the first set of open escrow accounts consistent with the batch processing information; automatically updating the second set of open escrow accounts consistent with the batch processing information; funding the set of new escrow accounts with funds from an operating account belonging to the real estate office; automatically causing checks to be cut, the checks being in an amount due to a client of the real estate office; and generating a batch status report and making the batch status report available to the real estate office directly. |
Commentary: One possible machine, one possible physical transformation – cutting checks. But the bank account management system is a passive player here, and spec doesn’t disclose scissors, knives, perforations or other physical cutting-like apparatus… And no, it’s not the same examiner who allowed the transformation from “lumpy” to “smooth” cash flows in 7,451,104. Could that really be it? 101 was never in play, though. Perhaps the examiner was feeling some guilt for letting this application sit for nearly three years after B of A responded to an office action in early 2006.
And we’ll close with a gimmie or two.
U.S. Patent No. 7,493,280 Method and system for setting an optimal reserve price for an auction
Assignee: Hewlett Packard
1. A method for determining a reserve price for a market, said method comprising:
selecting characteristics of said market;
selecting a relevant bidding model;
estimating a structure of said market, said estimating comprises expressing unobservable variables in terms of observable bids, wherein said unobservable variables are expressed in terms of observable bids by inverting said bid model;
predicting a bidding behavior;
predicting a first outcome of said market; and
evaluating said first outcome of said market.
|
Commentary: No idea how this one got through. Even pre-Bilski. Wow. Is there a physical transformation from the “unobservable” to the “observable”? And that estimating step has about four different 112 problems by my count.
And finally:
|
U.S. Patent No. 7,490,766 Apparatus and methods for monitoring transfusion of blood
1. A method for recording an audit trail for a blood transfusion, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) allocating from a supply of blood, a blood transfusion unit for a patient wherein the blood transfusion unit is marked with an identifying code;
(b) labeling the blood transfusion unit with a compatibility level having patient identification information and said blood transfusion unit identifying code;
(c) generating a blood request form for the patient, the blood request including patient identification information;
(d) placing the blood unit in a secured location for collection by a person authorized to collect said blood transfusion unit;
(e) recording on the blood request form for said patient (i) identification information for said authorized person collecting said blood transfusion unit, (ii) the time of collection, and (iii) the patient identification information;
(f) providing the patient with a wristband having patient identification information;
(g) recording identification information for the person performing a blood transfusion for said patient;
(h) recording the patient identification information on the patient wristband;
(i) recording the patient identification information on the compatibility label;
(j) recording the blood unit identification code on the compatibility label;
(k) recording the blood unit identification code on the blood unit;
(l) comparing the patient identification information on the patient wristband with the patient identification information on the compatibility label, and recording the results of the comparison;
(m) comparing the blood unit identification code on the compatibility label and the blood unit identification code on the blood unit and recording the result of the comparison;
(n) recording the time at which the blood unit is transfused;
(o) comparing the time of transfusion to the time the blood unit was collected from the secured location and calculating the time elapsed between the time of transfusion and the time of collection from said secured location; and
(p) providing a warning if the elapsed time is greater than a pre-set limit.
|
Commentary: Another post-Bilski allowance (12-17-08). Note to Examiner: just because a method has 16 steps doesn’t mean it’s patentable. Perhaps there’s confusion of “transfusion” with “transformation”.
Recent Comments