Obviousness
I didn't really bother to look too much at that since I assume that the original law firms that filed the patents would have taken a look, plus the inventor, since it is implied in the patent application that you explain how your patent is different from what is out there already and how it is not obvious.
From my reading of the VRNG patents, I did not think them obvious. Even GOOG prior to using the VRNG methods was doing the ranking in another manner even though the site had been up for years.
It is also troublesome to me that even after the USPTO initial reviews when they issued the patents and the followup review which upheld the patents, plus a lower court and its jury upheld the patents, that the CAFC now says it was 'obvious'. The one dissenting judge did question why they should substitute their own judgement on what is obvious over the USPTO.
In the Alice case, the entire line of courts up to the Supreme court all held that those patents were invalid. Here everyone said prior to the CAFC decision (except GOOG) that the patents were valid.
Louis J. Desy Jr.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
