An Open Response to the USPTO -- Physical Aspects of Mathematics
Sep 28, 2010, 20:02 (0 Talkback[s])
No-Size-Fits-All! An Application-Down Approach for Your Cloud Transformation REGISTER >
"The USPTO has issued a request for comments on their new
interim guidance, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter
Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos [PDF].
They invited comment by Monday, September 27, from the public on
three questions in particular:
1. What are examples of claims that do not meet the
machine-or-transformation test but nevertheless remain
patent-eligible because they do not recite an abstract idea?
2. What are examples of claims that meet the
machine-or-transformation test but nevertheless are not
patent-eligible because they recite an abstract idea?
3. The decision in Bilski suggested that it might be possible to
"defin[e] a narrower category or class of patent applications that
claim to instruct how business should be conducted," such that the
category itself would be unpatentable as "an attempt to patent
abstract ideas." Bilski slip op. at 12. Do any such "categories"
exist? If so, how does the category itself represent an "attempt to
patent abstract ideas?"
"They ask in effect how to tell an abstract idea from an
application of the idea. This article suggests answers to that
question from the perspective of a computer professional."