46 ms·
> Then he gave one round of critique, and when I addressed it, he said, "the patent law changed" and closed the process. Was this back in 2014, or more recentl
by dmoy 3y ago
> Then he gave one round of critique, and when I addressed it, he said, "the patent law changed" and closed the process.
Was this back in 2014, or more recently?
- AlbertCory 3y agoslightly after that. The thing is, "the patent law" had not changed with regard to obviousness (103). CLS Bank v. Alice which I think you're alluding to was about 101.
- dmoy 3y agoNo I just meant how much could it have changed since 2014 if it was also 2014 or soon after it, seems like a weird thing for a reviewer to say without further qualification I'd have to go ask my dad about how all this works specifically lol
- AlbertCory 3y agoOK. CLS Bank was in 2014. 103 is about obviousness. 101 is about patentable subject matter. I actually had an application rejected on 101 grounds after CLS Bank.
- dmoy 3y agoThat makes sense to me, since large classes of abstract ideas are not patentable anymore.