Software inventions can be evaluated using our Complex Patenting technology.
This is a proven method at our office, which was improved over time.

The Figure illustrates a method for comparing software inventions to decide on
Novelty, for example:

a. A software module or product under examination may be presented as a
multi-dimensional vector.

b. A second software (prior art) may also be presented as a multi-dimensional
vector.

c. There may be different aspects or embodiments or coding versions or views
at different levels of software development, of both software products - these
are presented as points on the surfaces as shown.

d. A computer program stores the vectors for the software packages/units
(or a plurality of vectors for several prior art software).

e. The computer program computes the distances between points on the two
surfaces (actually this may be a multi-dimensional vector, not just
a tri-dimensional vector), for a plurality of points on these surfaces.

f. The computer finds the points closest to each other,
corresponding to a minimal distance. Actually, there may be a plurality
of such minima. These pairs of points are presented to an examiner during
examination, or to the applicant or patent attorney during a patents search.

g. A person may then compare two software products, by comparing their most
similar representations or structure at a similar level. If they differ on
those points, one can assume that they are different inventions.

Notes:

1. An important aspect of this invention is that a large computer effort may
be required to perform many comparisons of complex vectors, until that most
similar aspect is found and presented to a human.

2. Performing this huge automatic processing can be done using the methods
disclosed in the present invetion.
This allows to perform an effective comparison of software inventions in a
short time, to facilitate the examination and to achieve quality patents.

3. For example, the vector for each software may indicate:

a. the type of software: signal processing, communications, operating system,
user interface menu, etc.

b. level of development, see for example the stages of software development
in the Figure.

c. the language of the software

d. the function of the software: may be defined using keywords or a Boolean,
logic equation for example.

Thus, using our novel technology, software packages can be compared
efficiently. The new method allows to apply the standard patentability tests.
In USA for example, it is compliance with 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112;
and taking into account the special properties of software.

Software is a most powerful medium for expressing an inventor's ingenuity
and innovation - there are almost no limitations, very complex methods and
structures can be imagined and precisely implemented. Still, there is no need
to change the patent laws for software; just to apply these laws with an
understanding of the special properties of software, and using modern tools.

Patentability criteria:
Applicants should be aware that, during examination, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in
the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343
F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be
interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from
the specification into the claims unnecessarily).
Especially in software this is relevant, as software is very flexible and
powerful - how to prove the disclosed method or feature is novel?