"Tu Quoque Rejected: The patent owner argued that Google's own video conferencing patents use similar "functional claiming" techniques, and therefore Google must believe such claims are patent-eligible. The Federal Circuit rejected this hypocrisy-style argument, holding that the eligibility of Google's patents "is not before us and has no bearing on our analysis.""
"Where Does Functional Claiming Fit? At oral argument, Chief Judge Moore candidly admitted doctrinal uncertainty: "Is this result-oriented functional claiming problem . . . a Step 1 issue or a Step 2 issue? I'll be honest with you, I don't always know where that line is." The opinion resolves this by treating functional claiming as part of the Step 1 "directed to" inquiry."
The Federal Circuit affirmed that U.S. Patent No. 7,679,637 is patent-ineligible. The patent owner argued that Google's own video-conferencing patents use similar functional-claiming techniques and thus suggested such claims were patent-eligible. The court rejected that tu quoque argument, stating the eligibility of Google's patents was not before the court and had no bearing on its analysis. Chief Judge Moore acknowledged uncertainty about whether result-oriented functional claiming belongs to Alice Step 1 or Step 2. The court resolved the doctrinal question by treating functional claiming as part of the Step 1 "directed to" inquiry.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]