0

A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, are configured to:

a) electronically receive...;

b) electronically receive...;

c) determine from the plurality of user online-dating profiles a set of potential matches for the first user;

The above is the first claim of Tinder's swipe patent.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10203854B2/en?oq=US10203854BB

I am referring to step (c).

So this step basically covers ALL possible ways to determine potential matches, i.e., any existing algorithm and to be invented in the future.

Is that the case, or will the court interpret with MPF or SPF, and therefore limit it to only those algorithms that are detailed in the specs?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

So this step basically covers ALL possible ways to determine potential matches, i.e., any existing algorithm and to be invented in the future.

When taken literally. It may "cover" a lot less under MPF.

Is that the case, or will the court interpret with MPF or SPF, and therefore limit it to only those algorithms that are detailed in the specs?

It is not straightforward to know what a court would do in advance. The court does not make these kinds of decisions in a vacuum - it gets input from the parties in dispute.

Also, there are 9 limitations you didn't mention and they are a lot more chunky than c).

My belief is that functional claiming in computer-related inventions has been virtually abolished. Any functionality that doesn't have an algorithm tied to it renders the claim invalid.

Improve this answer
5
  • If that is the case, a step that recites "sorting the list" would also be invalid if there are no specific sorting algorithm mentioned?
    – Bear Bile Farming is Torture
    Commented Nov 9 at 17:53
  • _Bear: Possibly. That's why I recommend simply not doing that. Break down the problem that the invention solves in two or more high level claim limitations and have stepwise breakdown for each. What is the scope you are gaining by reciting the minutiae, like sorting, in the claim vs in one of the stepwise breakdowns? There should not be much difference in scope but validity is greatly bolstered. (Of course if makes no logical sense for this rearrangement to affect validity, but as a practical matter the courts require/prefer it.)
    – bhuff36
    Commented Nov 9 at 18:00
  • actually, I am not sure what is a stepwise breakdown for a high level claim. Can you link to material on that?
    – Bear Bile Farming is Torture
    Commented Nov 9 at 18:16
  • Also, the 9 other limitations are independent of step (c)?
    – Bear Bile Farming is Torture
    Commented Nov 9 at 18:31
  • _Bear: Say you've invented quicksort, which is based on comparisons and swaps. Don't put the comparisons and swaps in the claim. Say "means for selecting a pivot element", "means for partitioning said array into regions ...", then provide stepwise breakdown (algorithms/flowcharts) that do the comparisons and swaps for these high-level MPF claim limitations. oblon.com/publications/…
    – bhuff36
    Commented Nov 10 at 4:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .