X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.108])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B3D635DB
	for <patents@aful.org>; Fri,  9 Jul 2004 01:17:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 8036B37E7A; Fri,  9 Jul 2004 01:17:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177])
	by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7091937E44; Fri,  9 Jul 2004 01:17:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cleosan.com (h14n2fls33o988.telia.com [213.67.225.14])
	by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450A538002;
	Fri,  9 Jul 2004 01:17:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40EDD5FB.3050904@cleosan.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 01:17:15 +0200
From: Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040229)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
Cc: Patent Forum <patents@aful.org>
Subject: Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"
References: <200407071739.i67HdW3h027991@world.std.com> <200407081345.05293.zqex@mpipks-dresden.mpg.de> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407081612210.69@querty.oas.a2e.de> <200407081621.59895.zqex@mpipks-dresden.mpg.de> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407081824310.2393@querty.oas.a2e.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407081824310.2393@querty.oas.a2e.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Validation-by: ehj@cleosan.com

Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> The real simple guideline is:
> 
> (1) No program claims

Like this one:

"Claims:
[...]
48. A computer program product for controlling a computer in a 
request-response client-server computer network in which a plurality of 
clients communicate with a server by issuing requests to read or write 
data, comprising a recording medium readable by the computer; and means 
recorded on the recording medium for directing the computer to:
-receive a plurality of requests from the clients at a receiver;
-analyse each of the plurality of requests passed from the request 
receiver in a request analyser;
-qualify each request in a request qualifier as either an actionable 
request for which action should be taken and a response issued, or a
deferrable request for which action should be delayed and a response 
deferred until an actionable state is reached;
-indicate from a state indicator, for each deferrable request, when the 
actionable state is reached such that each such deferrable request
is requalified as an actionable request; and
-indicate from a response indicator for each actionable request to the 
server that each such actionable request should be actioned and a
response provided.

http://gauss.bacon.su.se/EP/1/1/EP1159696.html

or this one:

"What is claimed is
[...]
15. A computer program product for controlling a computer, comprising:
a. a memory medium; and
b. a computer program, stored on said memory medium, said computer 
program comprising instructions for implementing at least one virtual 
device driver for controlling network communications from a DOS 
application using a controllerless modem servicing both DOS and non-DOS 
applications, wherein the at least one virtual device driver is 
guaranteed computer access to said controllerless modem, regardless of 
the state of the DOS application."

http://gauss.bacon.su.se/EP/9/9/EP993636.html

etc.

> (2) no claims to anything that can be described by a program claim

I have seen a couple of patents where almost all the claims for the 
"method" was reiterated with method replaced with "computer program":

Claim 1-4.  A method for xyz
Claim 5-8.  A computer program for (the same) xyz

Simple cut'n paste.

The patent system should work like MacDonalds:

    simple recepie -> predictable result

Someone said the difference between a patentlogist and a proctologist is 
not that big, but that is not how I ment the MacDonalds simile to be 
interpreted.

//Erik

