Speaking of old patents, there were two more pre-GATT patents issued today: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,514,397 (Trimeris) and 7,514,083 (University of Melbourne). Neither appear to have particularly interesting prosecution histories.
On the flip side, IBM again has several Accelerated Exam patents today, using their single method claim technique that we’ve seen before. Two of them sound pretty interesting: U.S. Patent No. 7,516,220 “Method and system for detecting and deterring robot access of web-based interfaces by using minimum expected human response time” – perhaps the PTO can use this instead of that darned reCAPTCHA; and U.S. Patent No. 7,515,899 “Distributed grid computing method utilizing processing cycles of mobile phones”. [Didn't Bale do something like this in the Dark Knight? Could Batman be prior art? Filmed partly in my office building, btw.]
But there is one patent that issued today that is not quite old enough, from 1995. It is our first triple loser:
U.S. Patent No. 7,516,172 Method for finding quotient in a digital system Assignee: United Microelectronics Corp. Filed: August 2, 1995 1. In a system for digital information processing, said system having a memory, a method for generating data representative of a quotient Q=a.sub.0a.sub.1a.sub.2 . . . a.sub.b from data representative of a divisor Y=y.sub.1y.sub.2 . . . y.sub.n and data representative of a dividend X=x.sub.1x.sub.2 . . . x.sub.a, comprising the steps of: (a) aligning the first non-zero bit of X with the first non-zero digit of Y; (b) defining a signed-digit partial remainder series R.sub.i where R.sub.0=Y, a first sign series of the partial remainder S.sub.i where S.sub.0=0, a second sign series of the partial remainder S.sub.ri, a quotient bit series a.sub.i, and a counter i beginning from zero; (c) subtracting X from R.sub.i which yields next signed-digit partial remainder R.sub.i+1; (d) setting the sign of R.sub.i+1 to S.sub.ri+1; (e) setting the result of exclusive-OR of S.sub.i and S.sub.ri+1 to the true sign of the next remainder S.sub.i+1; (f) setting a.sub.i to 1 if S.sub.i+1=0 or R.sub.i+1=0; (g) setting a.sub.i to 0 if S.sub.i+1=1; (h) inverting the signs of all digits of R.sub.i+1 if S.sub.i+1=1; (i) shift R.sub.i+1 left by one bit; (j) adding 1 to i; (k) repeating steps (c) to (j) until i reaches a predetermined value or R.sub.i+1=0; and (l) storing in said memory as said data representative of a quotient, a quotient resulting from step (k). |
Let’s begin with Loser Reason #1: the filing date. Because this patent wasn’t filed 8 weeks earlier, it will expire 20 years from its priority date -- 2014 -- rather than 17 years from today. That’s 12 years of term that just vanished. (Actually, the patent will get 4.5 years tacked on due to a BPAI decision... see below) Worse, there’s no apparent reason why this application couldn’t have been filed by June 7 – it was a continuation from a January 1994 application.
Loser Reason #2: The patent was allowed in 2002. So even with the post-GATT filing date, this application sat an extra seven years after it was allowed because of an alleged error with the PTO not sending the NOA to the new attorneys. Two petitions later, the abandonment was withdrawn and the patent issued.
Loser Reason #3: Bilski and the method roller coaster. This is a slam dunk under the Machine or Transformation test. But this patent's story is fascinating because it spans and discusses a good chunk of the law that the Federal Circuit discusses in Bilski. Note that this was a pre-State Street case. The Examiner wasted no time (only about 7 months) to reject the claims under 101 citing the Freeman-Walter-Abele test. The briefing argues over Alappat. By the time the case was eventually ruled upon by the BPAI, State Street had been decided. The Board reversed the Examiner under that test (note: PAIR mistakenly says this 8-15-2001 affirmed the examiner).
But wait, there's more. The Examiner requested reconsideration of the BPAI decision. While I know this practice of requesting reconsideration is common when an applicant loses an appeal (though I've never seen a successful request), I have to admit I was unaware that an Examiner could do this, too. Who knew? It's pretty rare, apparently. This cost about nine months of unrecoverable patent term (because this app was filed before 2000, Patent Term Adjustment is not available; only Patent Term Extension. Yes, for you non-practitioners, these terms are actually different things. Never confuse PTE with PTA...reminds me of this discussion).
How about that for a triple-whammy?
One more patent to discuss today, an unlikely candidate:
U.S. Patent No. 7,513,005 Washing method for a dishwasher, and dishwasher for carrying out such method Assignee: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgersete GmbH 1. A method for washing and drying items in a dishwasher, comprising: executing a washing program during which a washing liquid is applied to the items in the dishwasher; and following completion of the washing program, executing a drying program such that, in response to both an interruption of the drying program resulting in the dishwasher no longer being in a program run state and a thereafter following restoration of the dishwasher to its program run state, a parameter value is measured and, in a first given circumstance, the drying program is resumed if a selected one of a predetermined deviation and an absence of the predetermined deviation from a nominal value is detected and, in a second given circumstance, a fresh cycle of a washing program and a drying program is initiated if the other of the predetermined deviation and the absence of the predetermined deviation is detected.
Some questions for the crowd: What if it is a "general purpose" dishwasher? Would that be a "particular" machine? Is it particular simply because it manipulates tangible articles from a statutory class? And does it even do that? Isn't what's being claimed the program that controls the washing, and not the washing itself? And do you think this passes the transformation test, too (from dirty to clean; wet to dry)?
Recent Comments