non-transitory volatile memory

23:54 Jul 26, 2023 

Von 2010:
"In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation 'non-transitory' to the claim."
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2010/week08/TOC...

*Kopfschüttel*. Für EPO von 2019:
"In addition to apparatus and method claims, ‘computer readable medium’ claims that are broad enough to cover ‘signals’ are allowable at the EPO. It is therefore worthwhile including such a formulation in any first filing. There is no requirement for the invention claimed in this way to be ‘non-transitory’ or as ‘storage’ and it is recommended that basis is provided in the specification for the broader position as well as a narrower position that may be required for other jurisdictions, such as the US for example."
https://www.vault-ip.com/blog/2019/6/12/european-patent-law-...

23:35 Jul 26, 2023 

Artikel EPO-bezogen:
"This article follows up a post by Gene on 19 September entitled Remembering Nuijten and Comisky 5 Years Later. I commented that in the EPO the practice relating to signals is directly contrary to the U.S. Gene commented in response, inviting me to write an article on the topic."
https://ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/27/broad-claims-to-signals-co...

Anderes Gegenargument:
"What the CAFC failed to acknowledge is that a signal can never be transitory or non-transitory. A signal either exists or does not exist. This is an important issue because the Court has not defined what a non-transitory signal is...The term 'non-transitory' was finally defined by the USPTO on August 25, 2009 in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO') training manual concerning patentability of software...This definition, however, did not define what a non-transitory signal is. The guidance defined something completely different—a computer readable medium."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-414/65536/20181...

Ich fürchte, wenn ich das so anlese, ist das viel komplexer, als es den Anschein hat.

Grüße

23:30 Jul 26, 2023 

Vielleicht ist es heute schon zu spät, aber ich kann deinen Ansatz nicht nachvollziehen; was soll denn ein "nicht-temporärer flüchtiger Speicher" sein?

Gerhard, was du sagst, ist so meiner Meinung nach nicht ganz korrekt:
"On January 26, 2010, David Kappos, director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, advised that patent applicants wanting to avoid running into the trouble of In re Nuijten should direct all software claims to non-transitory computer-readable media. But this is not a requirement. As of 2015, about 4 percent of patents recently granted included non-transitory claim limitations."
https://www.upcounsel.com/non-transitory

Wir haben hier ein technisches Problem scheint mir. Von der Bewertung des Falls:
"Frankly, I think the ruling in Nuijten can be simply summarized by saying that Judges Gajarsa and Moore didn’t understand the technology. They were treating signals as if they are some kind of black magic..."
https://ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/19/remembering-nuijten-and-co...

[...]

16:06 Jul 26, 2023 

Da transitory gleichzusetzen ist mit temporary, fielen mir spontan die "temp files" ein, die man von Zeit zu Zeit löschen sollte, um Speicherplatz freizumachen. Wäre es hier dann nicht besser, von einem nicht-temporären flüchtigen Speicher zu sprechen im Gegensatz zu einem persistenten/nicht-flüchtigen? Es geht hier nur um sprachliches Feintuning, an den Erläuterungen von Sakshi gibt es nichts auszusetzen. Meine Frage richtet sich an die IT-Spezialisten. Unter folgendem Link ist auch von Langzeitspeichern die Rede: https://kinsta.com/de/blog/persistente-speicherung/#arten-vo...