Consider gymnasts, who use their own body weight as their primary resistance.They need strength, but additional bulk can be more of a hindrance than a help.While this continuous flow model speeds the delivery of value and keeps the system Lean, priorities must be updated continuously to provide the best economic outcomes. Using WSJF at Program Increment boundaries continuously updates backlog priorities based on user and business value, time factors, risk, opportunity enablement, and effort. Jobs that can deliver the most value (or cost of delay) and are of the shortest duration are selected first for implementation.
It avoids the overhead and delays caused by the start-stop-start nature of traditional projects, where authorizations and phase gates control the program and its economics. Like a tsunami, these lower court rulings are uniformly sweeping away any patent in its wake as being directed to merely an “abstract idea” that doesn’t provide “something more.” Those quoted words are taken from Our Judicial Mount Olympus’ two-part test in for separating patent-ineligible “claims to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” See Ignorance Is Not Bliss: Alice Corp. CLS Bank International* Briefly, the two-part “an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” In every court case I’ve read so far, all of those lower court rulings have dogmatically (and restrictively) applied this two-part test to rule the patent claims on systems and/or methods (all involving so-called “business methods”) to be patent-ineligible under 35 U. Instead, in my opinion, it reflects an utterly broken test for judging patent-eligibility under 35 U. ) other than by analogy to patents in prior cases; (3) fails to provide any meaningful and logical guidance for how to reach the “patent-eligibility zone,” especially for systems/methods involving these so-called “business methods”; (4) provides conflicting patent-eligibility standards with respect to their own prior precedents, most notably those of test that are the province of Congress (not Our Judicial Mount Olympus), as well as having no support in the factual record before it; and (6) focuses on the so-called “inventive concept,” and thus improperly comingles patent-eligibility under 35 U. That all these lower court rulings have found patent claims on such systems and/or methods to be patent-ineligible might be sheer coincidence, but I think not. § 101, one where Our Judicial Mount Olympus: (1) provides no objective standard for judging patent-eligibility, especially for patent claims relating to systems/methods involving data processing/data management (which are often characterized as “business methods”); (2) fails to define key terms of this test (i.e., what do “abstract idea” and “something more” mean? § 101 with what is more appropriately an issue of patentability under 35 U. Letter case (or just case) is the distinction between the letters that are in larger upper case (also uppercase, capital letters, capitals, caps, large letters, or more formally majuscule) and smaller lower case (also lowercase, small letters, or more formally minuscule) in the written representation of certain languages.The writing systems that distinguish between the upper and lower case have two parallel sets of letters, with each letter in one set usually having an equivalent in the other set.Basically, the two case variants are alternative representations of the same letter: they have the same name and pronunciation and will be treated identically when sorting in alphabetical order.