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
- IPWatchdog Unleashed: Standards, AI and the Data Transparency Imperative
- Patents for AI Inventions: A Comparison of Requirements in Brazil, the United States and Europe
- The Trump Administration’s USPTO Executive Team is Taking Shape
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 14: EU Commission Scraps SEP Draft Regulations; Senate Commerce to Explore Spectrum Auction Delays; House Science Seeks Review of Commercial Space Licensing
- Vidal Amicus Asks CAFC to Correct ED of TX Jury Instructions on Eligibility