USPTO 13/573,002: physical is the opposite of abstract / physical is substantial
IP WatchDog Article:
Is there a Light at the End of the Alice Tunnel? Rules for Alice Corp Vs CLS Bank compliance:
1) claim demonstrates "non-abstractness"
claim element is well-understood, routine, and conventional
claim is a question of fact
4) claim is reviewed for substantial
Speaking of Alice through the looking glass and Wonderland... “It’s
a new world order in the aftermath of Alice,” says Dale S. Lazar, a partner in DLA Piper’s Reston, Virginia, office.
Bitcoin blockchain blocks, agents, motes, bots, heartbeat, beacon are
metaphors for intervals, time cycles available to process / not process SYNTAX. The internet is coded, programmed using
time cycles to process instructions, commands etc. It follows that the key to achieving consistency, interoperability among
myriad memes and establishing a consistent, systemic one world economic system of systems is to focus on two main common building
blocks -- time cycles and syntax. USPTO applications leading up to 13/573,002 establish these facts in my opinion.
Computer ASIC chips create time cycles to process syntax as instructions - period.
See Supreme Court Alice Corp Vs CLS Bank "a claim may not be directed towards an abstract idea". Alice Corp
Vs CLS Bank would be turning internet and internet of money patent claims upside down -- if industry started taking this
precedent seriously which probably won't happen until the Bitcoin Blockchain wars begin -- in my opinion. Until then, you
may want to be thinking about what physical meme you will select given physical is the opposite of abstract. Then again,
the first filed physical meme isn't as important as the most useful. The meme should have a clock convention as well as a
method and means to measure and meter the Bitcoin Blockchain and therefore, survey points are necessary since the IRS has
stated that Bitcoin is "akin to property" see IRS memo #1421
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), was a 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court about patentable subject matter (patent eligibility). The issue in the case was whether certain claims about a computer-implemented, electronic
escrow service for facilitating financial transactions covered abstract ideas ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea,
and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that idea into patentable subject matter. Although the Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case was widely considered as a decision on software
patents or patents on software for business methods. It and the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos, another case involving software for a business method (which also did not opine on software
as such), were the first Supreme Court cases on the patent eligibility of software–related
inventions since Diamond v. Diehr in 1981. SOURCE LINK