It is not a slotted system. The Cambridge Ring, Sonet, T1, and ATM are slotted, but the packets in Token Ring are too big and the latency too low to allow slotting. One station takes the ring, and that station has exclusive access until the end of his packet. In a slotted system, accesses are of a fixed size and on a fixed schedule.

“Early Token Release” is not a reservation system, it’s a method of releasing the token at the end of the packet rather than waiting for the packet header to come back around to the originating station. It does allow a token to co-exist with a packet, but not with another token. There are no slots in this system, only packets.

The Token Ring priority system (a means for bridges to take priority over normal stations) is a packet-by-packet system, not a periodic system like my invention.

So none of the key elements of this system exist in Token Ring. The closest analog in wireline networking is something like the telephony networks where calls are allocated slots (or channels) in periodic packets. Those systems use a centralized form of control, not a negotiation system like my deal.

In summary, you couldn’t be farther from the mark.

I’m sure the next defense of Mr. Bennett’s patent application will be the “inverted pyramid” of claim drafting. Of course, I will be told, claim 1 is ridiculously broad. The rest of the claims will zero in on the real invention. All I can say to that is, such an approach is bogus. If the leading claim is non-novel, then it shouldn’t be there. Put the justifications and background material where they belong, not in the claims. Yes, that is a policy opinion rather than a view of the present state of the law.

I’m sure the next defense of Mr. Bennett’s patent application will be the “inverted pyramid” of claim drafting. Of course, I will be told, claim 1 is ridiculously broad. The rest of the claims will zero in on the real invention. All I can say to that is, such an approach is bogus. If the leading claim is non-novel, then it shouldn’t be there. Put the justifications and background material where they belong, not in the claims. Yes, that is a policy opinion rather than a view of the present state of the law.

As for whether your claim 1 resembles Token Ring… Token Ring has time slots. It has more than one with early token release. It has broadcasting to reserve timeslots (the priority/reservation scheme), which also uses coordination between stations to resolve conflicts… (Your claim 1 doesn’t have a “two-way handshake” either–it has “coordinating…” between stations. So does Token Ring.)

I’ll bet you a nickel that if you had a patent with claim 1 in force when I came out with an 802.5 LAN, you would assert that my product infringed your claim 1.

Look, I said I hadn’t read all your other claims. I have no doubt you built something rather different from Token Ring. But that doesn’t mean (a) that it was really novel rather than an elaboration of existing technics, or (b) that it’s an example of a “good” software patent.

Gentle readers, I invite you to compare Bennett’s claim 1 with 802.5 Token Ring. Decide for yourselves whether there is any resemblance.

As for whether your claim 1 resembles Token Ring… Token Ring has time slots. It has more than one with early token release. It has broadcasting to reserve timeslots (the priority/reservation scheme), which also uses coordination between stations to resolve conflicts… (Your claim 1 doesn’t have a “two-way handshake” either–it has “coordinating…” between stations. So does Token Ring.)

I’ll bet you a nickel that if you had a patent with claim 1 in force when I came out with an 802.5 LAN, you would assert that my product infringed your claim 1.

Look, I said I hadn’t read all your other claims. I have no doubt you built something rather different from Token Ring. But that doesn’t mean (a) that it was really novel rather than an elaboration of existing technics, or (b) that it’s an example of a “good” software patent.

Gentle readers, I invite you to compare Bennett’s claim 1 with 802.5 Token Ring. Decide for yourselves whether there is any resemblance.

Your assertion that my claim #1 is IBM Token Ring is ridiculous, frankly. I was one of the founders of the Open Token Foundation and a former Token Ring implementor, so I’m quite familiar with its method of operation.

My claim #1 says: 1. In a wireless network incorporating a medium access control (MAC) protocol, a MAC reservation-sensing mechanism for facilitating network use by a plurality of stations, comprising: listening to network traffic by a first station desiring to transmit on the network; determining the existence of reservation time slots on the network; identifying free time slots; broadcasting a reservation request for an identified free time slot to a second station on the network; coordinating, between the first station and the second station, to confirm that the identified free time slot is available; and iff there is no conflict on the network for the identified free time slot and the identified free time slot is confirmed to be free, transmitting data from the first station to the second station.

The only feature of this claim shared by Token Ring is listening before speaking. Token Ring doesn’t have time slots, it doesn’t have ex-ante reservations, it doesn’t have a two-way handshake, and it doesn’t use broadcasts in any way for medium access.

So other than the 99% of the system that’s not at all like Token Ring, you’re right on – it has something to do with networks, for sure.

I maintain that my solution is novel, in the context of the invention. I searched the database – as did a paid search company – for infringing patents on this solution and didn’t find any.

And that reveals part of the problem. Like the USPTO, Richard Bennett seems to think that only other patents constitute prior art. He also seems to think that anything which has not been patented is ipso facto novel.

I suggest that both of those suppositions are wrong. If they’re not wrong under the current precedents of the Federal Circuit, that just shows how many Federal Circuit cases were wrongly decided.

As for Bennett’s patent application, I have only read the portion excerpted here, but I see that the first claim appears to describe good old 802.5 Token Ring (see this brief description). I suppose it is a nice question whether some portions of Bennett’s mechanisms are really not obvious to someone skilled in the art, but overall, his first claim looks pretty obvious to me.

Note that I don’t say the issue is that Bennett’s problem is well known–patents are about solutions. I say Bennett’s solution (his MAC scheme) to the problem (network contention) appears to be nothing more than good workmanship, elaborating and implementing general methods already well known in the industry.

For different reasons, I agree with Mr. Lee: this patent application does not provide a clear example of a “good” software patent.

I maintain that my solution is novel, in the context of the invention. I searched the database – as did a paid search company – for infringing patents on this solution and didn’t find any.

And that reveals part of the problem. Like the USPTO, Richard Bennett seems to think that only other patents constitute prior art. He also seems to think that anything which has not been patented is ipso facto novel.

I suggest that both of those suppositions are wrong. If they’re not wrong under the current precedents of the Federal Circuit, that just shows how many Federal Circuit cases were wrongly decided.

As for Bennett’s patent application, I have only read the portion excerpted here, but I see that the first claim appears to describe good old 802.5 Token Ring (see this brief description). I suppose it is a nice question whether some portions of Bennett’s mechanisms are really not obvious to someone skilled in the art, but overall, his first claim looks pretty obvious to me.

Note that I don’t say the issue is that Bennett’s problem is well known–patents are about solutions. I say Bennett’s solution (his MAC scheme) to the problem (network contention) appears to be nothing more than good workmanship, elaborating and implementing general methods already well known in the industry.

For different reasons, I agree with Mr. Lee: this patent application does not provide a clear example of a “good” software patent.

Once I’ve done enough of them that I feel comfortable drawing generalizations

In 10 years, you will not have even covered 1% of software patents…

If the problems were the same in different domains, the a common solution would fail the obviousness test the second time it was applied. But the problems we face in wireless networking tend to differ in significant ways from the problems we find in nailed-up networking or computer buses. In wireless networking, messages transfers are generally much less reliable, power-saving is an issue (all those battery-powered devices) and we have to deal with mobility. These problems mandate variations and refinements to nailed-up networking solutions that push these inventions into novel territory.

This scheme, by the way, was adopted by the MBOA and WiMedia Alliance for UWB networking, and you’ll probably use it in your home in the next few years. There’s not necessarily going to be a lot of royalty money changing hands, and if there is I won’t see any of it.

In this particular case, most of your comment above doesn’t actually ask any questions. To answer the one question I do see: the purpose of this series is to document the extent of the problem with the current patent system. Once I’ve done enough of them that I feel comfortable drawing generalizations, I might start trying to formulate a proposal for how things might be fixed.

However, where I think the current patent jurisprudence goes wrong is that current law would only recognize prior art if it were specific to wireless networking applications. In contrast, it seems to me that if this problem has been solved in some domain–say reserving space on a shared bus in a PC–that applying those same contexts to the wireless content would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art.

I do agree with Gary that this application has a more plausible case for novelty and non-obviousness than most of the ones I’ve looked at so far.

I’m not up on research in protocols, but this does sound like a novel and clever idea to me if it can be made to work. I’ve come to object to software patents on broader grounds, but this looks more reasonable than most.

So once again, “novelty” isn’t an attribute of the problem, it applies to the solution. And if you think the solution isn’t novel, patent law says it’s not sufficient for you to have a feeling, you need to support it with evidence.

This being a real-world example, you should have no problem doing so, if you’re right.