{"id":818,"date":"2021-02-27T10:47:42","date_gmt":"2021-02-27T10:47:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/?p=818"},"modified":"2022-08-10T07:21:20","modified_gmt":"2022-08-10T07:21:20","slug":"lqp-patentcast-hartman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/lqp-patentcast-hartman\/","title":{"rendered":"LQP PatentCast: Ex Parte Stefan Hartman"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"Podcast\"><iframe style=\"border: none;\" src=\"\/\/html5-player.libsyn.com\/embed\/episode\/id\/6025025\/height\/360\/width\/640\/theme\/standard\/autonext\/no\/thumbnail\/yes\/autoplay\/no\/preload\/no\/no_addthis\/no\/direction\/backward\/\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><strong>Summary:<\/strong> Case Study: How Not to Write Software Claims<br \/>\nSoftware is patentable when you follow the rules. Craige analyzes how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated issued software claims because the claim drafter simply framed the claims in a way that was too abstract. This illustrates an avoidable, but all too common, flaw that leads to the demise of many software claims.\u200b<\/p>\n<p>Want to know more? Listen to the 3 lessons on how to patent software claims. Craige explains why Microsoft was unable to kill off software claims owned by Enfish, and he shares 3 valuable Litigation Quality Patent lessons and 3 business takeaways from Enfish decision by the Federal Circuit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Summary: Case Study: How Not to Write Software Claims Software is patentable when you follow the rules. Craige analyzes how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated issued software claims because the claim drafter simply framed the claims in a way that was too abstract. This illustrates an avoidable, but all too common, flaw [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1589,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lqp-patentcast"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/818","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=818"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/818\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1588,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/818\/revisions\/1588"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}