|
Ex Parte Gutta
''Ex parte Gutta'' (BPAI 2009) is a precedential decision from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concerning the patentability of mathematical formulae and/or algorithms. The BPAI rejected ''Gutta'' as failing a two-prong test to determine if a machine or "manufacture" involving a mathematical algorithm complies with 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patentability of processes was previously addressed in a closely related case, ''In re Bilski''. The ''Gutta'' Test For a claimed machine (or article of manufacture) involving a mathematical algorithm # Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g. "not a mere field-of-use label having no significance")? # Is the claim limited so as to not substantially encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either "in all fields" of use of the algorit ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Board Of Patent Appeals And Interferences
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) was an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decided issues of patentability. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was replaced with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective September 16, 2012. Structure The BPAI was primarily made up of an Appeals Division and a Trial Division. The Appeals Division, with over 100 Administrative Patent Judges, handled appeals of patent examiner rejections, with sections adjudicating different technology areas. The Trial Division, with 11 Administrative Patent Judges as of 2008, handled contested cases or interference proceedings. The BPAI was headed by a Chief Administrative Patent Judge with a Vice Chief. As of mid-2013, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge was James Donald Smith. Procedures An applicant could appeal the examiner's decision to the BPAI. The appeal procedure was described in chapter 1200 of the U.S. Manual of Pa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
United States Patent And Trademark Office
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States. The USPTO's headquarters are in Alexandria, Virginia, after a 2005 move from the Crystal City area of neighboring Arlington, Virginia. The USPTO is "unique among federal agencies because it operates solely on fees collected by its users, and not on taxpayer dollars". Its "operating structure is like a business in that it receives requests for services—applications for patents and trademark registrations—and charges fees projected to cover the cost of performing the services tprovide . The Office is headed by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a position last held by Andrei Iancu until he left office on January 20, 2021. Commissioner of Patents Drew Hirshfeld is performing the funct ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
In Re Bilski
''In re Bilski'', 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008), was an ''en banc'' decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on the patenting of method claims, particularly business methods. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the rejection of the patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The court also reiterated the machine-or-transformation test as ''the'' (meaning ''sole'') applicable test for patent-eligible subject matter, and stated that the test in '' State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group'' should no longer be relied upon. The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on appeal (as '' Bilski v. Kappos'') that affirmed the judgment of the CAFC, but revised many aspects of the CAFC's decision. In its decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the machine-or-transformation test as the sole test of process patent eligibility based on an interpretation of the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Machine-or-transformation Test
In United States patent law, the machine-or-transformation test is a test of patent eligibility under which a claim to a process qualifies for consideration if it (1) is implemented by a particular machine in a non-conventional and non-trivial manner or (2) transforms an article from one state to another.Stefania Fusco "Is In re Bilski a Deja Vu?" ''2009 Stan. Tech. L. Rev.'' P1 The test was first articulated under its present form in the government's brief in ''Gottschalk v. Benson''. In its reply brief on the merits in that case, the government said, "we submit that the cases follow such a rule—implicitly or explicitly—and that they cannot be rationalized otherwise." The court declined to adopt the proposed rule as categorical and as an exclusive test. It opined that future cases might present fact patterns calling for a different rule from that applicable to past cases, and therefore the machine-or-transformation test was just a "clue" to eligibility for a patent. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Freeman-Walter-Abele Test
''Freeman-Walter-Abele'' is a now outdated judicial test in United States patent law. It came from three decisions of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals—''In re Freeman'', 573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978), ''In re Walter'', 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980); and ''In re Abele'', 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982) —which attempted to comply with then-recent decisions of the Supreme Court concerning software-related patent claims. Overview The test was used to determine whether a patent claim was directed entirely to mathematical principles or algorithms, which are not patentable subject matter. The aim of the test was to allow claims that do not attempt to monopolize traditionally patent ineligible subject matter, such as mathematics, thinking, and laws of nature. Though primarily concerned with mathematical algorithms the test has some applicability in all subject matter discussions. Its use peaked in 1994 with '' In re Schrader''. Its use then faded, to be replaced by ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
United States Patent Case Law
This is a list of notable patent law cases in the United States in chronological order. The cases have been decided notably by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) or the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). While the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sits below the Supreme Court in the hierarchy of U.S. federal courts, patent cases only have the right of appeal to the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court will only review cases on a discretionary basis and rarely decides patent cases. Unless overruled by a Supreme Court case, Federal Circuit decisions can dictate the results of both patent prosecution and litigation as they are universally binding on all United States district courts and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Early cases (before 1900) *''Tyler v. Tuel'' - Supreme Court, 1810. Held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own nam ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
2009 In United States Case Law
9 (nine) is the natural number following and preceding . Evolution of the Arabic digit In the beginning, various Indians wrote a digit 9 similar in shape to the modern closing question mark without the bottom dot. The Kshatrapa, Andhra and Gupta started curving the bottom vertical line coming up with a -look-alike. The Nagari continued the bottom stroke to make a circle and enclose the 3-look-alike, in much the same way that the sign @ encircles a lowercase ''a''. As time went on, the enclosing circle became bigger and its line continued beyond the circle downwards, as the 3-look-alike became smaller. Soon, all that was left of the 3-look-alike was a squiggle. The Arabs simply connected that squiggle to the downward stroke at the middle and subsequent European change was purely cosmetic. While the shape of the glyph for the digit 9 has an ascender in most modern typefaces, in typefaces with text figures the character usually has a descender, as, for example, in . The mod ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Decisions Of The Board Of Patent Appeals And Interferences
Decision may refer to: Law and politics *Judgment (law), as the outcome of a legal case *Landmark decision, the outcome of a case that sets a legal precedent * ''Per curiam'' decision, by a court with multiple judges Books * ''Decision'' (novel), a 1983 political novel by Allen Drury * ''The Decision'' (novel), a 1998 book in the ''Animorphs'' series Sports *Decision (baseball), a statistical credit earned by a baseball pitcher * Decisions in combat sports *Decisions (professional wrestling), by which a wrestler scores a point against his opponent Film and TV * ''Decision'' (TV series), an American anthology TV series * ''The Decision'' (play), by the 20th-century German dramatist Bertolt Brecht * ''The Decision'' (TV special), in which NBA player LeBron James announced that he would switch teams * "The Decision" (song), by English indie rock band Young Knives Music Albums * ''Decisions'' (George Adams and Don Pullen album), 1984 * ''Decisions'' (The Winans album), 1987 Songs ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
