Fixing Claim 1 of Ex Parte Birger

In my last post I discussed how claim 1 in the Ex Parte Birger case had a number of arguably “abstract” elements.  I was wondering how difficult it might be be re-draft the claim to eliminate some of the abstract elements or at least introduce enough machine components to get it through the Section 101 keyhole, so I took a shot at it.   I did not have time to undertake a complete restructuring of the claim, but I think I did manage to buck up its machine components.  Also, I did not have time to study the disclosure to make sure the substance of the claim is completely correct, so please forgive any errors in that respect.  Most interestingly, in digging into this claim just a bit I realized that it was a struggle to claim a machine or process in concrete terms when trying to claim an invention that is described or defined in terms of an abstract “model” such as the OSI model and the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) model, wherein the invention is defined for example in terms of “layers” and “protocols” and “processes” that do not include a specific physical layer/structure.  Also note that I am not sure the proposed claim amendments are supported by Birger’s disclosure.

Here is my shot at a more “machine-like” form of claim 1 from Ex Parte Birger:

1. (Amended) A method for communicating between a first and second electronic device over a computer network, the method comprising the first electronic device using a machine-readable global address of the second device to communicate with the second endpoint, wherein:

the machine-readable global address includes machine-readable data specifying a protocol, a network identifier, and an address meaningful for the combination of the protocol and a network identified by the network identifier, wherein the protocol defines a process used to exchange information between electronic devices;

an application comprising machine-readable computer instructions executable on a computing device to send machine-readable messages directed to the second device through an identity-based communication layer that is situated between a network layer and an application layer, the messages being independent of the protocol, wherein the communication layer, network layer and application layer each comprise at least one computer-implemented process to communicate machine-readable data over the network; and

the identity-based communication layer including at least one process for transmitting the machine-readable messages to the second device using the protocol, the network, and the address specified by the global address.

  Back to All Resources