Let's see if we can uncover any other errors. (I objectively cheated — I used Opus 4.8.)
Dispatch No. 17 · Let's Ask Claude
Read the dispatch →
The actual case for cancellation: ask Claude to find the errors, then walk the claim through §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
Let's see if we can uncover any other errors. (I objectively cheated — I used Opus 4.8.)
Definite-and-anticipated, or novel-and-unintelligible. They don't get to have it both ways.
You can't patent E = mc² by adding “…on a computer.”
Anticipation is not an ipsissimis verbis test — my Figure 8 already shows it.
Pick your lane: anticipated under § 102, or obvious under § 103. The claim doesn't survive either way.
The single best argument against this patent is one nobody outside the examiner's chair was allowed to make — until the most expensive possible moment.