| > The USPTO isn't required to follow court rulings. While technically true, it does not match reality. The PTO does update its processes to reflect recent cases: http://patentlyo.com/jobs/2009/03/ptos-current-examination-s... http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/issues-examination-instr... > The CAFC -- the patent appeals court -- is relentless in overturning Supreme Court precedents against software patents. If this appears to be the case, it's mostly because as you said, the Supreme Court does not understand software, and has consistently made everybody's lives harder by issuing vague, non-concrete opinions about patent eligibility and validity, overturning well-established procedures. The SC's current stand is "we know an invalid patent when we see one and will make up arbitrary reasons to invalidate it", but that does not help the PTO or the lower courts clear guidelines that they can implement. Also, it is not true that the CAFC overturns Supreme Court precedents, as can be seen in the spate of decisions following Alice: http://www.law360.com/articles/662776/a-look-at-everything-t... |