Contrary to Judge Taranto’s position, not only does the McRO claim not produce a physical improvement to a display (contrast In re Allapat), but as can be seen above a display is not even recited in the McRO claim. Judge Taranto’s position is as best an assertion that a physical display somehow works better because of the content displayed is subjectively more appealing. However, a colorized version of The Maltese Falcon does not improve the intrinsic qualities of a generic display. Similarly, the intrinsic qualities of a Kindle reader are not improved based on the quality of an author’s style of writing.
The post Judge Taranto, Meet Judge Taranto appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- Mixed UK High Court Ruling Fails to Answer Fundamental Questions of AI Copyright Infringement
- Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works
- Squires Emphasizes AI, Dubs Inherited Backlog ‘An Absolute Dumpster Fire’ and a ‘Betrayal’
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Precedent on Pre-AIA Prior Art ‘By Another’
- Squires Restores PTAB’s RPI Identification Requirement to Exacting Pre-SharkNinja Standard
