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.
- Members of Congress Blast Biden on March-In Proposal and Pandemic Accord
- Rader’s Ruminations: The Most Striking (and Embarrassing) Legal Mistake in Modern Patent Law
- Supreme Court Denies Five IP Petitions on Issues from IPR Joinder to Contributory Trademark Infringement
- ‘Where Are the Designers on This?’: Some Post-Argument Thoughts on LKQ v. GM
- CAFC Puts Patent Community on Notice of Sanctions for Incorporation by Reference Violations