I saw your blog post very interesting.i am Nick Robinson,a community member at Patents DOT Com(a comprehensive free patent search engine).Will like to talk(through email) to you,is this the right time to talk about or should we talk during weekends ?

Regards,
Nick Robinson

E-nickrbson@gmail.com

In that case it has been established your test of obviousness is wrong. It is flawed and your question has been answered.

Sione

Blackboard’s US patent 6,988,138
From NoEduPatents

English Translation of the Blackboard Patent Claims

The following is a listing of the 44 claims in Blackboard’s U.S. patent #6,988,138, along with an interpretation of each claim. The initial text interpretation of each of the 44 claims were written by Michael Feldstein, who is not a lawyer. This information does not constitute legal advice.

A summary of the patent claim:

Summary: “We, Blackboard, invented a system that allows students to interact online with instructors in a course setting. We also invented a method that tracks for each user which data files they are able to read and write, how the data files are transmitted across the network from and to a user’s personal computer via an intermediate server, and finally the means by which course data files are presented and organized for each user.”

Claim 1 and Claim 36 are the “independent” claims and therefore the most important ones. The other claims are “dependent” on one or both of the independents.

A literal translation of the two independent claims:

“We (Blackboard Inc.) invented the Idea of creating a computer program for faculty and students who wish to share course files over the Internet. Our computer program will simultaneously accommodate several faculty members, several students, several courses, and several course files. All course files will be stored on a central server and be accessible by students and faculty with their personal computers. The course files will travel to and from the server over a network. Our computer program will keep track of who is authorized to create, read, and modify each file on the server. The authorization will depend upon the particular course being taught, the faculty member who is teaching it, and the students who are enrolled in the course.

In particular, our computer program will be able to perform the following steps: a) ensure each user is able to access and manipulate the appropriate course file depending on their authorization; b) designate which courses will be in the system and, accordingly, associate the set of files that go together with that course; allow the authorized user to transmit those files to the server for storage; and allow the authorized users to access and manipulate those files. c) if the user is a student, ensure that the student is able to access the student files; d) if the user is not a student, ensure that they are also able to access their authorized files.”

For the complete critique go to:

http://noedupatents.org/wiki/index.php?title=Blackboard%E2%80%99s_US_patent_6%2C988%2C138

In other words, the same “arbitrarity” that happens in every matter of law there is.

re Definition of Obviousness

Depends on which five (or more) people experienced in the art the examiner approaches.
Depends on what experience they have.
Depends on what he asks them and how the questions are asked precisely.
Depends on the context.

Your method is arbitrary and, in practice, it will end up no better than the present morass. Know why? Start by asking five or more people experienced in IP (choose carefully).

Sione

How about this: The examiner finds ~5 (or more) people versed in the art. He poses to them the problem solved by the patent. He asks them to list ways to solve that problem. If one of them mentions the method listed in the patent, it’s obvious.

Now, what is wrong with that method of defining obviousness?

Well, none of that is important, after all. The only person that gets to judge obviousness is an appointed government official with “legal” training. And more often than not, this official merely determines which litigant has supported his political patron more to determine whether the invention is obvious.

It’s all smoke and mirrors, no substance.

Instead of your usual sniping and bitching, how about stating YOUR position regarding IP, how you derive it and how you verify it. That would allow others the chance to evaluate whether you have a logical position and whether your view is tenable.

Sione

*yawn*