3 ms·
This is very likely useless. Prior art has to be an "enabling disclosure" - which isn't the same as the 112 enablement requirement but it does requires that the
by PatentTroll 11y ago
This is very likely useless. Prior art has to be an "enabling disclosure" - which isn't the same as the 112 enablement requirement but it does requires that the public is "in possession" of the invention. This algorithm just makes short phrases or maybe a sentence or two that make sense together. It is unlikely that this is enough to put the public "in possession" of anything. There are problems to be solved in the patent system, but this is not a solution to any of them. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2121.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2121.html
edit: so apparently this guy is an 'artist' so maybe this isn't meant to be taken seriously. Perhaps its just a commentary on the absurdity of the patent system. If that's the goal, then cool, I think he's made a point.