Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Good result in method patents in Appeals Court You generically can't say method patents were shot down. That's very misleading
Method patents tied to a particular machine or apparatus or method patents that transform a particular article into a different state or thing are still patentable.
This really applies mostly to business method and software patents (as Krk mentioned). That being said, the court made an interesting comment by stating that, "We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine."
They also said, "(ii) Data -- The raw materials of many information-age processes, however, are electronic signals and electronically-manipulated data. The transformation of raw data into a particular visual depiction of a physical object on a display is patent-eligible."
Finally, The Bilski process was completely an idea with no particular hardware cited or transformation of an article into a different thing.
The Court in particular stated, "The machine-or-transformation test is the only applicable test and must be applied, in light of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court and this court, when evaluating the patent-eligibility of process claims. Applicants here seek to claim a non-transformative process that encompasses a purely mental process of performing requisite mathematical calculations without the aid of a computer or any other device, mentally identifying those transactions that the calculations have revealed would hedge each other's risks, and performing the post-solution step of consummating those transactions. Moreover, while the claimed process contains physical steps (initiating, identifying), it does not involve transforming an article into a different state or thing. Therefore, Applicants' claim is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101."
So, there's still wiggle room for process patents. They can't be as broad as before, but I can still see lots and lots of software patents getting through--at least until there's more narrowing or clarification. |
