Invalidating design patents

Similarly, in , the installed software improved the way computers operate.However, both of these inventions were held patent eligible despite involving an “abstract idea”.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) overturned the patent examiner’s 103(a) rejection and introduced a new ground of rejection under 35 U. The decision of the PTAB in the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters,’ which could previously only have been produced by human animators.” Furthermore, the stance of the panel with respect to Mc Ro’s invention is interesting because the invention did not change the nature of computer’s operability in terms of tangible aspects such as speed and memory, but only made it simpler for human animators to animate 3D characters, which could have been done by using pencils, pens and other manual artistic tools.He has published his research in several peer-reviewed international quality journals and is also the recipient of MDS (Molecular Design and Synthesis) Award.He has also patented a transition metal-catalyzed method in the USPTO.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.

Leave a Reply