3 ms·

My understanding is that most software is not patentable, unless it is tied somehow to hardware or to a machine. I've identified a patent that makes broad claim

My understanding is that most software is not patentable, unless it is tied somehow to hardware or to a machine. I've identified a patent that makes broad claims for which prior art exists in the form of a YouTube video detailing the software and its interaction with a machine. Why is it the case that this form of prior-art is not considered for ex-parte reexamination but it is in the case of the patent owner requesting reexamination? It doesn't make sense. References: [0] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2209.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2209.html [1] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2801.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2801.html

jaywalk 4y ago
> My understanding is that most software is not patentable, unless it is tied somehow to hardware or to a machine. That understanding is incorrect. What is explicitly non-patentable are "abstract ideas" like the patents discussed in this blog post. An example off the top of my head of software that is patentable but not tied to hardware would be a video codec.
- neodypsis 4y ago
  I think that in the case of the video codec it applies due to the algorithm transforming a signal that represents a physical quantity. So perhaps the requirement is that the software to patent must have a physical effect?