{"id":27997,"date":"2015-10-07T14:45:50","date_gmt":"2015-10-07T18:45:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.iposgoode.ca\/?p=27997"},"modified":"2015-10-07T14:45:50","modified_gmt":"2015-10-07T18:45:50","slug":"means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article is cross-posted with permission from Bereskin & Parr<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

It is very important to provide adequate disclosure when using \u201cmeans-plus-function\u201d claims in a U.S. patent, particularly in the field of software. \u201cMeans-plus-function\u201d claims include elements that are defined in a functional (as opposed to structural) manner, such as \u201cmeans for tying a shoe\u201d, and can be useful as long as they are carefully prepared. In particular, \u201cmeans\u201d claims require the disclosure of specific structural examples in the body of the patent that are used to interpret the functional elements.1<\/sup><\/p>\n

One further issue is that this requirement is often confused with the requirement that the patent include enabling disclosure.2<\/sup>\u00a0Enabling disclosure generally relates to whether an individual of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., a suitable engineer or programmer) could make or use the invention. On the other hand, providing adequate disclosure of corresponding structures is important, even where such structures may be routine, since this is necessary to ensure the claim is not indefinite.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Genesis of Means-Plus-Function Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

Means plus function claims have an interesting history. At the turn of the 20th century, functional claiming using \u201cmeans\u201d language was widely accepted. For example, the Wright brothers\u2019 patent for a FLYING MACHINE claimed \u201cmeans for simultaneously moving the lateral portions [of a wing] into different angular relations\u201d and \u201cmeans whereby said rudder is caused to present to the wind that side thereof...\u201d3<\/sup><\/p>\n

In 1946, however, the U.S. Supreme Court grounded functional claiming in a case called Halliburton Oil v. Walker4<\/sup><\/em>, where the invention related to locating the surface of oil in a well using echolocation. In Haliburton<\/em>, the Court found the patent to be indefinite since there was no disclosure of how the patent actually performed the claimed function. Means language that related to a desired function could not be used at the point of novelty in a claim.5<\/sup><\/p>\n

Congress responded in 1952 with legislative changes that specifically allowed patentees to use \u201cmeans\u201d language to claim a function. These claims, however, would not cover the entire function itself, but rather only the specific structures that accomplished this function and which were discussed in the patent.\u00a0This restriction was intended to deny overbroad claim language, and leave open the possibility of competitive innovation (i.e., different structures that can accomplish the same function).<\/p>\n

The recent case of Eon Corp v. AT&T6<\/sup><\/em> reminds us that this requirement continues today in software patents that use means-plus function claims. In Eon<\/em>, the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of invalidity related to a software patent that allowed a television to perform actions such as impulse buying, audience voting, and sorting shows by theme. The Court reviewed the requirements with respect to structure and enablement of software \u201cmeans-plus-function\u201d patents, including discussing two important earlier decisions: Katz7<\/sup> and Aristocrat<\/em>.8<\/sup><\/p>\n

A \u201cgeneral purpose computer\u201d is not enough\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the Aristocrat<\/em> decision, the Federal Circuit had previously explained that the mere disclosure of a \u201cgeneral purpose computer\u201d was insufficient to satisfy the disclosure requirements of means claims. The appellant in Aristocrat<\/em> manufactured and sold gaming machines, and held a patent9<\/sup> that disclosed a gambling game for a slot machine where players define their own winning combinations. Claim 1 recited \u201cgame control means\u201d but the patent disclosed only a \u201cgeneral purpose computer\u201d for performing this function, and in particular did not disclose the algorithm used to control play. The court held that:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026Because general purpose computers can be programmed to perform very different tasks in very different ways, simply disclosing a computer as the structure designated to perform a particular function does not limit the scope of the claim to \"the corresponding structure, material, or acts\" that perform the function, as required [by the statute]...\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On the other hand, the Court explained that when an algorithm is disclosed that performs the claimed functions, even though that algorithm may be running on a general purpose computer, that computer becomes, in effect, a special purpose computer10<\/sup> that will satisfy the statutory requirements for means claims.<\/p>\n

\u2026unless the claimed functions are \u201cbasic operations\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Following Artistocrat<\/em>, the Court recognized an important exception in Katz<\/em>. In this case, the appellant owned several patents that dealt with telephone processing and interactive call conferencing systems. The Court explained that a general purpose computer could provide sufficient structure to support a means-plus-function claim provided that the function is coextensive with the ordinary capabilities of the general purpose computer. In Katz<\/em>, this was taken to include basic operations such as \u201cprocessing\u201d, \u201creceiving\u201d, and \u201cstoring\u201d. Hence, the claims were not indefinite even though a specific algorithm was not disclosed, since a general purpose computer does not need special programming to perform these particular operations.<\/p>\n

Eon Corp v. AT&T<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Eon<\/em>, the appellant tried to argue that a general purpose computer could provide structure sufficient to satisfy the requirements for \u201cmeans\u201d claims so long as an ordinary person skilled in the art would know how to implement the invention. The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that the appellant had confused the requirement for enabling disclosure with the requirements related to means-plus-function claims. Whether or not a skilled programmer or engineer could understand how to build the invention was not relevant, since their knowledge could not be imported into the specification to provide structure for the means claims. Moreover, Eon\u2019s attempt to rely on the Katz<\/em> exception because the claimed functions were \u201csimple to implement\u201d was fruitless, as the Court explained that \u201c\u2026\u201cspecial programming\u201d does not denote a level of complexity.\u201d Hence, Eon was unable to convince the Federal Circuit to \u201cfill in the gaps\u201d in the disclosure and overturn the finding of invalidity.<\/p>\n

The Eon <\/em>decision serves as a useful reminder about the need to be careful when using \u201cmeans plus function\u201d claims in U.S. patent applications, even in a software case where the specific functions that are claimed seem simple. With Aristocrats<\/em> and Katz<\/em> in mind, it is important to recall the distinction between enabling disclosure and scope-limiting disclosure. Moreover, while the narrow Katz exception does exists for functionality that is co-extensive with the \u201cgeneral-purpose computer\u201d, in most cases a more detailed disclosure of an algorithm will be required for enforceable claims to exist in the United States.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the situation is slightly different here in Canada, as we do not have a comparable statutory requirement for \u201cmeans\u201d claims. Indeed, \u201cmeans\u201d claims are commonly used here, and our examination guidelines explain that they can be supported either by a description of the types of means contemplated, or by knowledge that would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.11<\/sup> Hence, Eon would likely have been much more successful in Canada with its \u201csimple to implement\u201d arguments.<\/p>\n

\n

1<\/sup>\u00a035 USC 112(f)<\/a>.
\n2<\/sup> Under 35 USC 112(a)<\/a>.
\n3<\/sup> U.S. Patent No. 821,393<\/a> issued May 22, 1906.
\n4<\/sup>\u00a0Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker (1946) 329 US 1 [Halliburton].<\/em>
\n5<\/sup>\u00a0See In re Donaldson<\/em> (16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc<\/em>))
\n6<\/sup>\u00a0Eon Corp v. AT&T<\/em> (2015) D.Del. No. 1:13-cv-00910-RGA [Eon<\/em>].
\n7<\/sup>\u00a0In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation<\/em>, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) [Katz<\/em>].
\n8<\/sup> Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int\u2019l Game Tech<\/em>., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) [Aristocrat<\/em>].
\n9<\/sup> U.S. Patent 6,093,102<\/a>, issued July 25, 2000.
\n10<\/sup> Citing WMS Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Technology<\/em>, 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) [WMS Gaming<\/em>]
\n11<\/sup> See MOPOP, s.16.08.05<\/a>: \u201cIn order for a means statement to be properly supported, the description must describe what types of means are contemplated by the inventor unless this would be obvious to the person skilled in the art in view of their common general knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jason Hynes<\/a>\u00a0is a partner in\u00a0Bereskin & Parr's Patent Group in the Waterloo Region and is is Vice-Chair of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada's (IPIC) Information Technology Committee. Paul Blizzard<\/a> is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall School and was a summer student in\u00a0Bereskin & Parr's\u00a0in\u00a0Toronto.\u00a0Twitter: @paulblizzard<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article is cross-posted with permission from Bereskin & Parr. It is very important to provide adequate disclosure when using \u201cmeans-plus-function\u201d claims in a U.S. patent, particularly in the field of software. \u201cMeans-plus-function\u201d claims include elements that are defined in a functional (as opposed to structural) manner, such as \u201cmeans for tying a shoe\u201d, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2140,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3,170,60,141,10],"tags":[2680,2681,2682,2521],"class_list":["post-27997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogs","category-electronic-processes","category-ip","category-patentability","category-patents","tag-eon-corp-v-att","tag-general-purpose-computers","tag-means-plus-function","tag-paul-blizzard"],"yoast_head":"\nMeans for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision - IPOsgoode<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision - IPOsgoode\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This article is cross-posted with permission from Bereskin & Parr. It is very important to provide adequate disclosure when using \u201cmeans-plus-function\u201d claims in a U.S. patent, particularly in the field of software. \u201cMeans-plus-function\u201d claims include elements that are defined in a functional (as opposed to structural) manner, such as \u201cmeans for tying a shoe\u201d, and […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IPOsgoode\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-10-07T18:45:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ccraig\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ccraig\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ccraig\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94\"},\"headline\":\"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-07T18:45:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1318,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"Eon Corp. v. AT&T\",\"general purpose computers\",\"means-plus-function\",\"Paul Blizzard\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Blogs\",\"Electronic Processes\",\"IP\",\"Patentability\",\"Patents\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/\",\"name\":\"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision - IPOsgoode\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-07T18:45:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/07\\\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/\",\"name\":\"IPOsgoode\",\"description\":\"An Authoritive Leader in IP\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94\",\"name\":\"ccraig\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"ccraig\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/author\\\/ccraig\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision - IPOsgoode","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision - IPOsgoode","og_description":"This article is cross-posted with permission from Bereskin & Parr. It is very important to provide adequate disclosure when using \u201cmeans-plus-function\u201d claims in a U.S. patent, particularly in the field of software. \u201cMeans-plus-function\u201d claims include elements that are defined in a functional (as opposed to structural) manner, such as \u201cmeans for tying a shoe\u201d, and […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/","og_site_name":"IPOsgoode","article_published_time":"2015-10-07T18:45:50+00:00","author":"ccraig","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ccraig","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/"},"author":{"name":"ccraig","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#\/schema\/person\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94"},"headline":"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision","datePublished":"2015-10-07T18:45:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/"},"wordCount":1318,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["Eon Corp. v. AT&T","general purpose computers","means-plus-function","Paul Blizzard"],"articleSection":["Blogs","Electronic Processes","IP","Patentability","Patents"],"inLanguage":"en-CA"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/","url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/","name":"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision - IPOsgoode","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-10-07T18:45:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#\/schema\/person\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-CA","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2015\/10\/07\/means-for-invalidating-a-patent-lessons-from-the-eon-corp-v-att-decision\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Means for Invalidating a Patent: Lessons from the Eon Corp v. AT&T Decision"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/","name":"IPOsgoode","description":"An Authoritive Leader in IP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-CA"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#\/schema\/person\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94","name":"ccraig","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-CA","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"ccraig"},"url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/author\/ccraig\/"}]}},"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":3,"label":"Blogs"},{"value":170,"label":"Electronic Processes"},{"value":60,"label":"IP"},{"value":141,"label":"Patentability"},{"value":10,"label":"Patents"}],"post_tag":[{"value":2680,"label":"Eon Corp. v. AT&T"},{"value":2681,"label":"general purpose computers"},{"value":2682,"label":"means-plus-function"},{"value":2521,"label":"Paul Blizzard"}]},"featured_image_src_large":false,"author_info":{"display_name":"ccraig","author_link":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/author\/ccraig\/"},"comment_info":"","category_info":[{"term_id":3,"name":"Blogs","slug":"blogs","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":853,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":3,"category_count":853,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Blogs","category_nicename":"blogs","category_parent":0},{"term_id":170,"name":"Electronic Processes","slug":"electronic-processes","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":170,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":27,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":170,"category_count":27,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Electronic Processes","category_nicename":"electronic-processes","category_parent":0},{"term_id":60,"name":"IP","slug":"ip","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":60,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":1229,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":60,"category_count":1229,"category_description":"","cat_name":"IP","category_nicename":"ip","category_parent":0},{"term_id":141,"name":"Patentability","slug":"patentability","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":141,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":137,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":141,"category_count":137,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Patentability","category_nicename":"patentability","category_parent":0},{"term_id":10,"name":"Patents","slug":"patents","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":10,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":557,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":10,"category_count":557,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Patents","category_nicename":"patents","category_parent":0}],"tag_info":[{"term_id":2680,"name":"Eon Corp. v. AT&T","slug":"eon-corp-v-att","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":2680,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":2681,"name":"general purpose computers","slug":"general-purpose-computers","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":2681,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":2682,"name":"means-plus-function","slug":"means-plus-function","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":2682,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":2521,"name":"Paul Blizzard","slug":"paul-blizzard","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":2521,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":7,"filter":"raw"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2140"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}