Invalidating design patents

Consequently, in the PTAB’s assessment, the representative claim did not rise above the threshold test of patentability under section 101.

But much of what the PTAB seems concerned about relates to disclosure and there is nothing in the PTAB panel decision in to suggest that the PTAB reviewed the specification to determine whether the somewhat generally described terms were given particularized meaning by the applicant.

The PTAB held that the algorithm which performs the task of classifying the images can also be done manually or mentally and therefore “ are whether such an algorithm creates a special purpose MRI apparatus and whether the new apparatus is described with “particularity” and “improved functionality”? 112), particularly where the claim here specifically is drafted to cover a machine.

These issues, however, are best handled when determining the sufficiency of the disclosure (i.e., 35 U. Itagaki’s claim-1 reads as follows: an image acquisition unit configured to divide an imaging region of an object to be examined into a plurality of stations of respective station positions, and acquire a plurality of images having different image types for each station, while moving a table on which the object is mounted, station by station;a classification processing unit configured to classify the plurality of images by image types and station position, based on imaging condition including imaging parameters, wherein the display control unit displays the plurality of images by image types in spatial order of station positions, based on the classification result by the classification processing unit. Kuriappan Alappat, an employee of Tektronix had devised an anti-aliasing algorithm that improved the appearance of the display.

It will be interesting to see what the Federal Circuit decides, especially when Dr.In essence, these two decisions recognized the problems with two-step framework of .Firstly, almost all inventions can be reduced to an ineligible abstract idea because every invention has a basic underlying scientific principle or theory on which it operates.In other words, the court acknowledges that at least a certain degree of unconventionality (i.e., enough to overcome an obviousness rejection) was imparted to the Itagaki improved MRI apparatus through an algorithm.As a result, MRI apparatus must be significantly more than the platform on which the algorithm operates and should have passed patent-eligibility test under section 101.