Original: http://www.heckel.org/Heckel/ACM%20Paper/doccomp.htm

IPC LogoIntellectual Property Creators         

Document Comparison: An example of prior art

An Obvious Patent?

A criticism of the patent system is that computer scientists are qualified to judge invention in software while the PTO is not. In his article[26] Kahin says, the PTO is,

awarding patents merely for automating familiar processes such as ... comparing documents (Patent No. 4,807,182). But software developers have been routinely automating such [functions] for years.

In fact, the ACM published a refereed paper describing that (hashcoding) technique for comparing two text files albeit for source code, rather than document comparison[17]. It seems that the ACM and the PTO have similar standards of inventiveness.

It so happens I wrote that paper, and I brought it to the attention of the patentholder and (indirectly) to WordPerfect about 10 months before Mr. Kahin's article was published. Four companies put on notice about the patent brought the paper to the attention of the patentholder. This suggests that where prior art exists which narrows a patent's scope, it is likely to surface.

Advanced Software, was founded to develop and market DocuComp which uses the patented technology. Its inventor, Cary Queen, a Ph.D in mathematics has filed over a dozen patents in genetic engineering where he is principal in a startup, Protein Design Labs. He also used the patented hashcoding technique to compare genes to identify similarities.

Cary Queen reports there is more prejudice against patents in software than in biotechnology, where hundreds of startups have been financed, as biotechnology patents are better respected.

(Last updated on 10/06/98)

IPClogoIntellectual Property Creators                       www.ipcreators.org
101 First St., Suite 425
Los Altos, CA 94022
Voice: 650/948-8350
© Paul Heckel 1995-7