The oral argument of the week was argued about seven weeks ago and received a Rule 36 decision. \u00a0It covers several interesting issues, such as whether the presence of a means plus function limitation should make a claim patent eligible. \u00a0The one issue that I thought got lost in the discussion of means plus function claims, however, is the the issue of preemption. \u00a0Namely, if a claim includes a means plus function claim and the means is limited to the structure disclosed in the specification, how could such a claim possibly preempt all the other means of performing that function? \u00a0Therefore, how could the claim as a whole preempt the purported abstract idea?<\/p>\n
The oral argument also addressed whether evidence should be required to prove that something was an abstract idea.<\/p>\n
And, Judge Lourie endeared himself to patent prosecutors everywhere by inquiring whether all business methods should be deemed patent ineligible: \u00a0[Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n You can listen to the entire oral argument [here<\/a>].<\/p>\n