Abstract
The paper is the first of several ones [14,17] describing a mathematical structure developed in the FSTP project, mathematically modeling Substantive Patent Law (“SPL“) and its US Highest Courts‘ precedents primarily for emerging technologies inventions. Chapter 2 presents this mathematical structure comprising particularly, 3 abstraction levels - each comprising “inventive concepts“, their “subset coverings“, “concept transformations“, “induced concept relations‘, and “refinements“. Chapters 3 and 4 explain its practical application in describing an invention respectively testing it by an Innovation Expert System (IES) for its satisfying SPL.
Using the notion of “inventive concepts“ for precisely describing emerging technologies inventions has been introduced into SPL precedents by the US Supreme Court during its ongoing “SPL initiative“ - marked by its KSR/Bilski/ Mayo/ Myriad decisions. It induced, into the FSTP project, a rigorous mathematical analysis of allegedly new problems caused by these Highest Courts‘ SPL decisions about emerging technologies inventions. This analysis proved extremely fertile by enabling not only clarifying/removing obscurities in such problems but also developing powerful “patent technology“ in the FSTP project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
“Advanced IT” denotes IT research areas such as AI, Semantics, KR, DL, NL
Brachmann, R., Levesque, H.: Knowledge Representation & Reasoning. Elsevier (2004)
The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge UP (2010)
Schindler, S.: Mathematically Modeling Substantive Patent Law (SPL) Top- Down vs. Bottom-Up, Yokohama, JURISIN 2013 (2013) ∗)
SSBG pat. appl.: THE FSTP EXPERT SYSTEM ∗ )
SSBG pat. appl.: AN INNOVATION EXPERT SYS., IES, & ITS DATA STRUC., PTR- DS ∗ )
SSBG’s Amicus Brief to the CAFC in LBC (2013) ∗ )
SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in CLS (October 07, 2013) ∗ )
SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in WildTangent (September 23, 2013) ∗ )
Schindler, S., Paschke, A., Ramakrishna, S.: Formal Legal Reasoning that an Invention Satisfies SPL, Bologna, JURIX 2013 (2013) ∗ )
Schindler, S.: Substantive Trademark Law (STL), Substantive Copyright Law (SCL), and SPL - STL Tests Are True SCL Subtests, Which Are True SPL Subtests (in prep.)
Schindler, S.: Boon and Bane of Inventive Concepts and Refined Claim Construction in the Supreme Court’s New Patent Precedents, Hawaii, IAM-2014 (2014) ∗ )
SSBG’s Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its (In)Definiteness Questions (March 3, 2014) ∗ )
Wegner, B., Schindler, S.: Unabbreviated Version of “A Mathematical Structure for Modeling Inventions, Coimbra, CICM-2014”, http://www.fstp-expert-system.com
Fiacco, B.: Amicus Brief to the CAFC in VERSATA v. SAP & USPTO (March 24, 2014) ∗ )
Schindler, S.: The Supreme Court’s ‘SPL Initiative’: Scientizing Its SPL Interpretation Clarifies Three Initially Evergreen SPL Obscurities (submitted for publ., 2014) ∗ )
Wegner, B., Schindler, S.: A Refined Mathematical Structure for Modeling Inventions (in prep.)
Schindler, S., Shipley, H.: Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the 902 case
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wegner, B., Schindler, S. (2014). A Mathematical Structure for Modeling Inventions. In: Watt, S.M., Davenport, J.H., Sexton, A.P., Sojka, P., Urban, J. (eds) Intelligent Computer Mathematics. CICM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8543. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08434-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08434-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08433-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08434-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)