Source: http://healthdrugpdf.com/d/dorsey.com1.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 00:15:04
Document Index: 420381623

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 608', '§ 1']

Reproduced with permission from BNA’s Patent,Trademark
11/20/09, 11/20/2009. Copyright ஽ 2009 by The Bu-reau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
As the patent community anticipates a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on subject
matter patentability, recent rulings by the Federal Circuit and the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences suggest strategies for preparing method patent applications that will sur-
vive the Federal Circuit’s ‘‘machine-or-transformation’’ test.
The Changing Landscape of Method Claims in the Wake of In re Bilski:What We Can Learn from Recent Decisions of Federal Courts and the Board ofPatent Appeals
rulings on software-based and other business methodpatent applications.
On review before the high court is the en banc ruling
‘‘Pure’’ business methods are out. Algorithms by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit1
are out. Machines and data transformations
that, in order to be eligible for patent protection, an in-
ventive method must either be tied to a machine or re-
While the patent community waits for the Supreme
cite a transformation of an article.2 This ‘‘machine-or-
Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964 (U.S.
transformation’’ test replaced the Freeman-Walter-
argued Nov. 9, 2009) (79 PTCJ 33, 11/13/09), patent ap-
Abele3 test and the ‘‘useful, concrete and tangible
plicants seeking to write patentable claims are stuckwith trying to conform to the lower courts’ most recent
1 In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir.
2 ‘‘The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched
Adriana Suringa Luedke and Bridget M. Hay-
inquiry; an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies
den are lawyers at Dorsey & Whitney, Min-
§ 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular
neapolis. Luedke can be reached at
machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article.’’
leudke.adriana@dorsey.com. Hayden can be
reached at hayden.bridget@dorsey.com.
3 In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (C.C.P.A.
result’’ inquiry advocated in State Street,4 each of
gregating, and selling real estate property and claims
which had been applied by the Federal Circuit and its
reciting a method of performing tax-deferred real estate
predecessor court in various cases, and both of which
property exchanges were not statutory under Section
101. Since no machine was recited, the only issue be-
In this article, we examine the 2008 decision of the
fore the court was whether the claims met the ‘‘trans-
Federal Circuit, federal district court decisions, and de-
formation’’ prong of the Bilski test.13 The court held
cisions of Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of
that the claims ‘‘involve[d] only the transformation or
Patent Appeals and Interferences. Based upon the out-
manipulation of legal obligations and relationships’’
comes in these cases, we offer guidance as to what is
that did not qualify under Bilski.14
patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, strategies for pre-
Concerning the recitation of the ‘‘creation of deed-
senting methods in patent applications and claiming
shares’’ in some of the claims, the court found that the
these methods, and possible ‘‘fixes’’ for applications
deedshares themselves were not physical objects, but
drafted pre-Bilski that must now withstand scrutiny un-
only represented intangible legal ownership interests in
der the new machine-or-transformation test.
property.15 Therefore, the creation of deedshares wasnot sufficient to establish patent eligibility under Bil-
A number of recent federal court and board decisions
have applied the patent eligibility test set forth in Bilski,
implemented step to an otherwise obvious method was
not sufficient to avoid invalidity of the claim. In KingPharmeuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc.,17 the district court
held invalid claims to a method of increasing the oral
Several cases have addressed (and rejected) claims
bioavailability of metaxalone because the claims were
obvious over the prior art asserted by the accused in-
In In re Ferguson,6 the Federal Circuit reviewed the
board’s rejection of claims directed to a method of mar-
Two dependent claims added a step of informing the
keting a product and a ‘‘paradigm’’ for marketing soft-
patient of certain results, which the patentee argued
ware as nonstatutory subject matter under Section
was not obvious. The court rejected this argument, con-
101.7 The appellate court affirmed the board’s rejection,
cluding that ‘‘[b]ecause the food effect is an inherent
concluding that the method claims were neither tied to
property of the prior art and, therefore, unpatentable,
a particular machine or apparatus nor did they trans-
then informing a patient of that inherent property is
form a particular article into a different state or thing.8
The court defined a machine broadly as ‘‘a concrete
The court also commented that the added step of in-
thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices or com-
forming the patient did not meet the patent eligibility
binations of devices,’’ which did not include the ‘‘shared
standard set forth in Bilski because the step did not re-
marketing force’’ to which the method claims were
quire use of a machine or transform the metaxalone
into a different state or thing.19 Notably, this conclusion
The claims directed to a ‘‘paradigm’’ were non-
runs counter to the Supreme Court’s instruction that
statutory because the claims did not fall within any of
claims are to be examined ‘‘as a whole’’ and not dis-
the four statutory categories (machines, manufactures,
sected into old and new elements and that are evaluated
compositions of matter and processes). Concerning the
two closest possible categories, the court concluded
Recent board decisions have been consistent with the
that the claimed paradigm was not a process, because
holdings of the federal courts. For example, in Ex parte
no act or series of acts was required, and was not a
Roberts,21 the board found ineligible under Section 101
manufacture, because it was not a tangible article re-
a ‘‘method of creating a real estate investment instru-
sulting from a process of manufacture.10 Concerning
ment adapted for performing tax-deferred exchanges’’
the recitation of a ‘‘marketing company’’ in the para-
because the claim did not satisfy either the machine or
digm claims, the court concluded that the patent appli-
cants did ‘‘no more than provide an abstract idea—a
Similarly, in Ex parte Haworth,23 a method for ‘‘at-
business model for an intangible marketing com-
tempting to collect payments from customers having
delinquent accounts concurrently with a partner that
In Fort Properties Inc. v. American Master Lease
owns the delinquent accounts’’ was found to be patent
LLC,12 the California district court held that claims re-
ineligible because the claim wording was ‘‘broad in that
citing a series of transactions involving acquiring, ag-
1980); In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C.C.P.A.
4 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial
16 See Ex parte Roberts., 2009-004444 at 4-5 (B.P.A.I. June
Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1370, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
19, 2009) (holding a ‘‘method of creating a real estate invest-
ment instrument adapted for performing tax-deferred ex-
changes’’ patent ineligible as not passing the machine-or-
7 The court accepted the board’s definition of ‘‘paradigm’’
17 593 F. Supp.2d 501 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
it refers generally to extending an offer, receiving an
machine. Accordingly, the process claims . . . are not
acceptance, and paying a commission’’ and did not in-
voke, recite or limit the method of implementation us-ing any particular machine or apparatus.24
The court also evaluated similar claims that recited
the use of a ‘‘comparator’’ to perform the recited pixel-
B. Software Claims Not Expressly Tied to a ‘Particular
by-pixel comparison and held that this recitation also
did not mandate a machine.29 While the court acknowl-edged that software was offered as one ‘‘option,’’ the
Other cases have addressed software methods where
court concluded that the claimed function of the com-
the claim language was either not expressly tied to com-
parator could also be performed in one’s mind or on pa-
puter hardware components or the ties to computer
per such that a machine was not required. The court
components were somewhat ambiguous. In several
further noted that, even though the ‘‘comparator’’ was
cases, courts have rejected the recitation of generic
defined as a ‘‘device,’’ ‘‘the use of the term ‘device’ is
computer components as sufficient to satisfy the ‘‘ma-
not synonymous with machine.’’30 As a result, none of
chine’’ prong of the Bilski test. A number of these deci-
the claims at issue met the ‘‘machine’’ prong of the Bil-
sions also addressed the ‘‘transformation’’ prong of the
Concerning the ‘‘transformation’’ prong, the court re-
In Research Corporation Technology Inc. v. Mi-
lied in particular upon the Abele decision in expanding
crosoft Corp.,25 the district court considered the patent
the requirements of this test by requiring that the
eligibility of method claims in six patents directed to
claimed transformation process be both ‘‘(1) limited to
methods of halftoning of gray scale images by using a
transformation of specific data, and 2) limited to a vi-
pixel-by-pixel comparison of the image against a blue
sual depiction representing specific objects or sub-
noise mask. Relying on the Federal Circuit’s Bilski
stances.’’31 It then concluded that a number of the
analysis as well as a decision of its predecessor court,
patent claims did not meet the second prong of this ex-
In re Abele,26 the judge concluded that a number of the
panded test because the claims did not ‘‘require any vi-
sual depiction or subsequent display’’ even though the
transformation test set forth in Bilski.27
claimed method did transform specific image data.32
Concerning the ‘‘machine’’ prong, the district court
The district court also found other claims patent-
found that the pixel-by-pixel comparison recited in the
eligible under Section 101 because these claims recited
claims did not require the use of a machine, but could
the use of the comparison data ‘‘to produce a halftoned
‘‘dictate[d] a transformation of specific data, and [were]
be done on a sheet of paper using a pen. The com-
further limited to a visual depiction which represents
parison uses formulas and numbers to generate a bi-
specific objects.’’33 Thus, the patent eligibility of the
nary value to determine the placement of a dot at a
claims turned on whether the claims recited the use of
location. Formulas and numbers not tied to a particu-
the transformed data to generate a display.
lar machine cannot be patented, under the machine
In DealerTrack Inc. v. Huber,34 the district court
prong, even with a field-of-use limitation because
granted a summary judgment of invalidity under § 101
they represent fundamental principles, and to do so
of patent claims directed to ‘‘a computer aided method’’
would preempt the entire field. The patent claims . . .
of managing a credit application reciting the following
do not mandate the use of a machine to achieve their
algorithmic and algebraic ends. Simply because adigital apparatus such as a computer, calculator, or
[A] receiving credit application data from a remote
the like could assist with this comparison does not
render it patent eligible material. RCT’s argument
[B] selectively forwarding the credit application data
that a pixel by its nature is electronic and therefore
to remote funding source terminal devices;
necessitates a machine is a post solution argumentand the Court rejects it. The claim construction
specifies that the comparison is of a value to a mask
29 The term ‘‘comparator’’ was construed by the court to be
(or set of values) to determine whether the dot is
a ‘‘device (or collection of operations, as in software) that com-
turned on at a specific location. This process does
pares an input number (called the operand) to a number pre-
not require a particular machine. The Bilski test is
stored in the comparator (called the threshold) and produces
clear: the process claims must be tied to a particular
as output a binary value (such as ‘‘0,’’ zero) if the input is alge-braically less than the threshold [the result of comparing anoperand against a fixed threshold and setting an operand less
24 Id. at 9-10. See also, e.g., Ex parte Farnes, 2009-002770
than the threshold to one value and an operand greater than
(B.P.A.I. June 2, 2009) (rejecting a method claim for develop-
or equal to the threshold to another value], and produces the
ing a solution to a customer experience issue including steps
opposite binary value (such as ‘‘1,’’ one) if the input is algebra-
of: ‘‘identifying a target customer,’’ ‘‘defining a current cus-
ically greater than or equal to the threshold.’’ Id. at *17 (em-
tomer experience,’’ ‘‘summarizing values and benefits’’ to pro-
vide to the customer, and ‘‘identifying metrics for measuring
success’’); Ex parte Salinkas, 2009-002768 (B.P.A.I. May 18,
31 Id. at *9. Notably, Bilski concluded that the Abele visual
2009) (finding patent ineligible a method of launching a
depiction was ‘‘sufficient’’ to establish transformation (545
knowledge network involving ‘‘selecting an executive spon-
F.3d at 963), while the Research Corporation court went fur-
sor,’’ ‘‘forming a core team of experts,’’ and ‘‘providing pre-
ther by making visual depiction ‘‘required’’ to establish trans-
25 2009 WL 2413623 (D. Ariz. July 28, 2009) (78 PTCJ 432,
26 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
34 2009 WL 2020761 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2009) (78 PTCJ 341,
[C] forwarding funding decision data from at least
tation of ‘over the Internet’ suffices to tie a process
one of the remote funding source terminal de-
claim to a particular machine’’ and concluded that it
vices to the remote application entry and display
The internet continues to exist despite the addition
[D] wherein the selectively forwarding the credit ap-
or subtraction of any particular piece of hardware. It
may be supposed that the internet itself, rather than
[E] sending at least a portion of a credit application
any underlying computer or set of computers, is the
to more than one of said remote funding sources
‘‘machine’’ to which plaintiff refers. Yet the internet
is an abstraction. If every computer user in the world
[F] sending at least a portion of a credit application
unplugged from the internet, the internet would
cease to exist, although every molecule of every ma-
sequentially until a finding [sic ] source returns a
chine remained in place. One can touch a computer
or a network cable, but one cannot touch ‘‘the inter-
[G] sending . . . a credit application . . . after a prede-
Additionally, the court found that the recitation of the
[H] sending the credit application from a first remote
internet in this case merely constituted ‘‘insignificant
funding source to a second remote funding
extra-solution activity’’ and therefore did not qualify as
a ‘‘particular machine’’ under Bilski.41 ‘‘[T]ossing in
In concluding that the claim did not satisfy the Bilski
references to internet commerce’’ was not sufficient to
machine-or-transformation test, the court held that the
render ‘‘a mental process for collecting data and weigh-
claimed central processor, remote application and dis-
ing values’’ patent-eligible.42 Additionally, ‘‘limiting’’
play device, and remote funding source terminal device
the claim to use over the Internet was not a meaningful
could be ‘‘any device’’ and did not constitute a ‘‘’par-
limitation, such that the claims ‘‘broadly preempt the
ticular machine’ within the meaning of Bilski.’’35 The
fundamental mental process of fraud detection using
court relied upon several board decisions to support its
associations between credit cards.’’43
premise that ‘‘claims reciting the use of general purpose
processors or computers do not satisfy the test.’’36
claim,44 notwithstanding the Federal Circuit’s holding
In Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions Inc.,37 the
in In re Beauregard,45 the district court concluded that
district court held claims for ‘‘a method for verifying the
‘‘there is at present no legal doctrine creating a special
validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet’’
‘‘Beauregard claim’’ that would exempt the claim from
and ‘‘a computer readable medium containing program
the analysis of Bilski.’’ Moreover, ‘‘[s]imply appending
instructions for detecting fraud in a credit card transac-
‘A computer readable media including program instruc-
tion . . . over the Internet’’ invalid under § 101 based
tions’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in-
upon the court’s interpretation of Bilski.
sufficient to make it statutory.’’46 Consequently, this
Concerning the method claim, the court considered
claim also failed the Bilski test.
both the ‘‘transformation’’ and ‘‘machine’’ prongs of the
In at least one instance, the U.S. International Trade
Bilski test. In concluding that there was no transforma-
Commission has interpreted the ‘‘machine’’ prong of
tion, the court focused on the intangibility of the ma-
Bilski less stringently than did the district courts in the
nipulated data. According to the court, transformation
cases discussed above. In In the Matter of Certain Video
is limited to transformation of a physical article or sub-
Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Point-
stance. Accordingly, the method claim did not qualify
ing Devices,47 the accused infringer filed a motion for
because the data representing credit cards did not rep-
summary judgment alleging that the asserted claims
resent tangible articles but instead an intangible series
impermissibly sought to patent a mathematical algo-
of rights and obligations existing between the account
rithm. According to the movant, the recitations of a ‘‘3D
pointing device,’’ ‘‘handheld device,’’ or ‘‘free space
Concerning whether the claimed method was tied to
pointing device’’ were not sufficient to tie the claims to
a particular machine, the court assessed whether ‘‘reci-
a particular machine, but served ‘‘only to limit the field-of-use of the claimed mathematical algorithm and [did]
not otherwise impart patentability on the claimed math-
Id. at *3. The court relied upon the holdings in Ex parte
Gutta, No. 2008-3000 at 5-6 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2009) (stating
In denying the motion for summary judgment, the
‘‘[t]he recitation in the preamble of ‘[a] computerized method
ITC first noted that, ‘‘[w]hile the ultimate determination
performed by a data processor’ adds nothing more than a gen-
of whether the asserted claims are patentable under
eral purpose computer that is associated with the steps of the
§ 101 is a question of law, the Federal Circuit has ac-
process in an unspecified manner.’’); Ex parte Nawathe, No.2007-3360, 2009 WL 327520, *4 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2009) (finding‘‘the computerized recitation purports to a general purpose
processor [], as opposed to a particular computer specifically
programmed for executing the steps of the claimed method.’’);
and Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan, No. 2008-4742 at 9-10 (B.P.A.I.
Jan. 13, 2009) (indicating the appellant does not dispute ‘‘the
recitation of a processor does not limit the process steps to any
44 Claims having this format are called ‘‘Beauregard’’
specific machine or apparatus.’’). The court also cited Cyber-
claims and were found to not be barred by the traditional
source Corp. v. Retail Decisions Inc., (discussed below), in sup-
printed matter rule in In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583, 1584, 35
port of its interpretation of the required ‘‘particular machine.’’
37 620 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 92 USPQ2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
47 2009 WL 1070801 (U.S.I.T.C. 2009).
knowledged that ‘there may be cases in which the legal
given a dataset of feature vectors associated with the
question as to patentable subject matter may turn on
subsidiary factual issues’ ’’ (citation omitted). In con-
for each binary partition under consideration, rank-
struing the claims, the tribunal found that there was a
ing features using two-category feature ranking; and
genuine dispute as to whether the claimed ‘‘devices’’represented a ‘‘particular machine’’ under the Bilski
while the predetermined number of features has not
test and whether the claimed ‘‘two-dimensional rota-
yet been selected: picking a binary partition p;
tional transform’’ was merely a mathematical calcula-
selecting a feature based on the ranking for binary
tion or instead meant ‘‘changing the mathematical rep-
resentation of a two-dimensional quantity from oneframe of reference to a differently-oriented frame of ref-
adding the selected feature to an output list if not al-
erence’’ as asserted by the patentee. Additionally, the
ready present in the output list and removing the se-
dispute over the meaning of the claimed ‘‘two-
lected feature from further consideration for the bi-
dimensional rotational transform’’ also raised a dis-
puted issue as to whether this element recited a trans-
Notably, while the independent claim failed the
formation that would qualify under the ‘‘transforma-
machine-or-transformation test, its dependent claim
tion’’ prong of Bilski. Given these disputed issues, the
was eligible because it recited, ‘‘further comprising us-
ITC concluded that it was inappropriate to grant sum-
ing the selected features in training a classifier for clas-
mary judgment as to the patent eligibility of the claims.
sifying data into categories.’’ In view of the specifica-
A similar conclusion was reached in Versata Soft-
tion, the board indicated that the ‘‘classifier’’ was a par-
ware Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc.,48 in which the dis-
ticular machine ‘‘in that it performs a particular data
trict court denied the defendant’s motion for summary
classification function that is beyond mere general pur-
judgment of invalidity under Section 101 based upon
pose computing.’’53 The board also concluded that the
the Bilski court’s refusal ‘‘to adopt a broad exclusion
claim ‘‘transforms a particular article into a different
over software or any other such category of subject
state or thing, namely by transforming an untrained
matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to funda-
classifier into a trained classifier.’’54
In Ex parte Casati,55 the board reversed the examin-
Less stringent ‘‘machine’’ prong analyses are also
er’s Section 101 rejection of a method claim reciting:
found at the board level. For example, in Ex parteSchrader,50 the board held patent-eligible under Bilski
A method of analyzing data and making predictions,
reading process execution data from logs for a busi-
A method for obtaining feedback from consumers re-
ceiving an advertisement from an ad provided by anad provider through an interactive channel, the
collecting the process execution data and storing the
process execution data in a memory defining a ware-house;
creating a feedback panel including at least one feed-back response concerning said advertisement; and
analyzing the process execution data; generatingprediction models in response to the analyzing; and
providing said feedback panel to said consumers,
using the prediction models to predict an occurrence
said feedback panel being activated by a consumer to
of an exception in the business process.
provide said feedback response concerning said ad-vertisement to said ad provider through said interac-
In this case, giving consideration to the specification,
which ‘‘unequivocally describes the data warehouse aspart of the overall system apparatus, and subsequent
Here, the board found ‘‘interactive channel’’ to be
descriptions describe the memory/warehouse device in
part of an ‘‘overall patent eligible system of appara-
terms of machine executable functions,’’ the board con-
tuses’’ when viewed in the context of the specification,
cluded that ‘‘one of ordinary skill in the art would un-
which included ‘‘the Internet and World Wide Web, In-
derstand that the claimed storing of process execution
teractive Television, and self service devices, such as In-
data in a memory defining a warehouse constitutes
formation Kiosks and Automated Teller Machines.’’51
patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 because the
In another recent decision, Ex parte Forman,52 the
memory/warehouse element ties the claims to a particu-
board found a ‘‘computer-implemented feature selec-
tion method’’ including a ‘‘classifier’’ eligible under
Other recent board decisions have reached the oppo-
Section 101 because it satisfied both the machine and
transformation prong. Here, the ‘‘classifier’’ was recitedin a dependent claim, in which its independent claim re-cited:
53 Id. at 13.54 Id. See also Ex parte Busche, No. 2008-004750 (B.P.A.I.
A computer-implemented feature selection method
May 28, 2009) (holding a process claim and a computer pro-
for selecting a predetermined number of features for
gram product claim, each reciting training a machine, ‘‘are di-
a set of binary partitions over a set of categories
rected to machines that have such structure as may be adaptedby training.’’)
55 No. 2009-005786 (B.P.A.I. July 31, 2009).
56 Id. at 7. See also Ex parte Dickerson, No. 2009-001172 at
49 Citing Bilski, 545 F.3d at 959 n. 23.
16 (B.P.A.I. July 9, 2009) (holding claims that ‘‘recite a comput-
50 No. 2009-009098 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2009).
erized method which includes a step of outputting information
from a computer . . . are tied to a particular machine or appa-
52 No. 2008-005348 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2009).
implemented methods ineligible under the Bilski test
transformation test applied to this type of claim.63
because the claims failed to tie the method steps to any
Then, applying the Bilski test, the board concluded that
concrete parts, devices, or combinations of devices. For
the claim did not qualify. According to the board, the
example, in Ex parte Holtz,57 the board found ineligible
under Section 101 a ‘‘method for comparing file tree de-scriptions’’ because the claim ‘‘obtains data (a file struc-
does not transform physical subject matter and is not
ture), compares data (file structures), generates a
tied to a particular machine. . . . Limiting the claims
change log, and optimizes the change log without tying
to computer readable media does not add any practi-
these steps to any concrete parts, devices, or combina-
cal limitation to the scope of the claim. Such a field-
tions of devices’’ and the ‘‘file structures’’ did not repre-
of-use limitation is insufficient to render an other-
Similarly, in Ex parte Gutta,58 the board held ineli-
gible under § 101 a ‘‘method for identifying one or moremean items for a plurality of items . . . having a sym-
II. The Current Scope of Patent Eligibility
bolic value of a symbolic attribute,’’ concluding that the
These recent cases establish that some types of meth-
claim ‘‘computes a variance and selects a mean item
ods are clearly patent-eligible under Section 101, others
without tying these steps to any concrete parts, devices,
clearly are not eligible, and yet others may be depend-
or combinations of devices’’ and ‘‘symbolic values are
ing on how they are described and claimed.
neither physical objects nor do they represent physicalobjects.’’
First, the eligibility of system and apparatus claims is
largely unaffected by the Bilski decision, with the ca-
In contrast to the district court’s decision in Cyber-
veat that such claims may be more closely scrutinized
source Corp., discussed supra, in a recent board deci-
for compliance with Diamond v. Diehr and Gottschalk
sion, Ex parte Bodin,59 ‘‘a computer program product’’
v. Benson, which prohibit patenting of a claim directed
was found to be patent-eligible subject matter as being
to ‘‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, [or] abstract
embodied in a ‘‘computer readable medium.’’ Here, the
board considered whether the phrase ‘‘recorded on the
Also, methods that are performed at least in part by a
recording medium’’ as it is recited in the body of the
machine qualify for patent eligibility under Section 101.
claims was the same as ‘‘recorded on a computer-
Thus, for example, some computer-implemented and
readable medium.’’ Acknowledging the differences be-
software-related inventions remain patentable as long
tween a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a
as they are properly described and claimed as being
computer readable medium compared to a nonstatutory
performed by a computer or computer components.
claim to a data structure that referred to ideas reflected
The tie to a machine, however, cannot merely be im-
in nonstatutory processes, the board stated: ‘‘[w]hen
plicit based upon the description and context of the ap-
functional descriptive material is recorded on some
plication or general language in the preamble of the
computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally
claim. Instead, the use of a machine to perform one or
and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be
more of the claimed functions must be expressly de-
statutory in most cases since use of technology permits
scribed in the body of the claim so as to be a meaning-
the function of the descriptive material to be real-
ful limitation on the claim. If a method claim can be
read in such a way that all functions can be performed
Similarly, in Ex parte Azuma,61 a claim to a ‘‘com-
by a human, it will likely not pass the machine prong of
puter program product . . . comprising: a computer us-
able medium’’ was found to be directed to statutory
The ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluat-
subject matter under § 101 because the language ‘‘com-
ing Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101’’ re-
puter usable medium’’ referred to tangible storage me-
cently issued by the Patent and Trademark Office con-
dia, such as a server, floppy drive, main memory and
firm that the recitation of a general purpose computer
hard disk as disclosed by appellant’s specification, and
is sufficient to satisfy Section 101 where the general
did not ‘‘implicate the use of a carrier wave.’’
purpose computer is ‘‘programmed to perform the pro-
In an older decision, Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan,62
cess steps, . . . in effect, becom[ing] a special purpose
however, the Board seemingly came to the opposite
conclusion, holding that a claim reciting ‘‘a computer
Concerning data transformation, there seems to be
readable media including program instructions which
agreement of the Federal Circuit and at least one dis-
when executed by a processor cause the processor to
trict court that a method that is both limited to transfor-
perform’’ a series of steps was not patent-eligible under
mation of specific data and limited to a visual depiction
Bilski. The board first determined that ‘‘analysis of a
representing specific objects or substances qualifies un-
‘manufacture’ claim and a ‘process’ claim is the sameunder
63 Id. at 11.64 Id. at 12.
65 Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185, 205 USPQ 488
58 No. 2008-004366 at 10-11 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 2009).
(1980); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 175 USPQ 673
59 No. 2009-002913 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 5, 2009).
60 Id. at 10 (comparing In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84,
66 ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Sub-
32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) to In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
ject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101,’’ U.S. Patent and
1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
The authors’ recent experiences with examiners suggest that
62 No. 2008-004742 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2009).
der Section 101.67 Thus, claims analogous to those in In
Concerning claims directed to computer program
re Abele68 in which ‘‘data clearly represented physical
products, one district court has held that appending ‘‘A
and tangible objects, namely the structure of bones, or-
computer readable media including program instruc-
gans, and other body tissues [so as to recite] the trans-
tions’’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in-
formation of that raw data into a particular visual depic-
sufficient to make it statutory.72 The board has also
tion of a physical object on a display’’ are patent-
held ineligible claims to ‘‘a computer readable me-
dia.’’73 The board has, however, also upheld the eligibil-ity of ‘‘a computer program product’’ as being embod-
ied in a computer readable medium.74 Given these in-
Bilski has had a significant impact in eliminating
consistent decisions, the patent eligibility of claims in
patent protection for inventions that are performed en-
tirely by humans or can be interpreted as such if read
Concerning claims directed to generalized computer
broadly. This includes claims that describe processes
processing functions, several Board decisions suggest
for creating or manipulating legal and financial docu-
that, absent a tie to a concrete real-world application,
ments and relationships. In this area in particular, many
such claims are likely to be deemed an ‘‘algorithm’’ un-
pending applications filed prior to Bilski are no longer
der Benson and therefore held to be non-statutory. 75
patent-eligible, and many issued patents are no longer
Any recitation of a specific field of use for the claimed
valid. This retroactive impact of the Bilski decision is
process or use of the outcome of such processes are
troubling, given the investment in these patents and ap-
also more likely to be found ‘‘field-of-use’’ or ‘‘post-
plications, which have now been rendered essentially
solution activity’’ limitations insufficient to render the
worthless despite the suggestion in the Federal Circuit’s
claim patent-eligible. Thus, the more tied a claimed pro-
earlier State Street decision, now overruled, that such
cess is to tangible results or particular applications (not
claims qualified for patent protection.
just fields of use), the more likely it is to qualify under
Inventions that do not fit within the four statutory
categories are also not patent-eligible. The Federal Cir-cuit and the board have rejected claims directed to ‘‘a
III. Presenting and Claiming Methods in Patent
signal,’’ ‘‘a paradigm,’’ ‘‘a user interface’’ and ‘‘a corr-elator’’ on the basis that these items did not qualify as a
‘‘machine, manufacture, composition of matter or pro-
Several strategies for describing and claiming meth-
cess’’ under § 101. 70 There is also an increasing focus
ods or processes in patent applications may avoid or
on the tangibility of the claimed invention in that, to
minimize potential Section 101 problems.
qualify as a ‘‘machine’’ or ‘‘manufacture’’ under Section
First, the description provided in a patent application
should include well-defined steps or functions associ-ated with method or process. For example, when the
claims include ‘‘initiating’’ method steps, a description
Remaining areas of uncertainty concerning the scope
of well-defined physical steps or functions for initiating
of Section 101 include (1) what qualifies under Bilski as
should be provided, and a concrete item, machine, de-
a ‘‘transformation of an article or data,’’ (2) whether
vice, or component that is responsible for the initiating
claims to computer programs (Beauregard claims)
function should be identified. For claiming ‘‘identify-
qualify, and (3) whether internal computer processing
ing’’ method steps, provide specific parameters for
functionality not tied to a specific application or tan-
making the identification, such as according to a speci-
fied measurement.76 Where data is involved, the source
Concerning data transformation, other than Abele-
and type of data should be specified.
style claims discussed above, what qualifies as a data or
Also, drawings should be provided that depict the
article transformation remains unclear. Claims that
concrete item, device, component or combination
have been held not to meet the transformation prong in-
thereof, and each method or process step or function
clude claims directed to the creation or manipulation of
should be linked expressly to at least one item, device
data representing an intangible series of rights and ob-
or component in the drawings that performs the step or
ligations (e.g., credit card data) and claims directed to
function. Broadening language indicating that other
the transformation or manipulation of legal obligations
components may also be used to perform the function
and relationships. Beyond these specific examples, it is
may also be included to avoid an unduly narrow inter-
difficult to predict what will or will not qualify as a data
or article transformation under Bilski.
The claims should affirmatively claim the device, ma-
chine or component performing each step or function.
67 In re Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963; Research Corporation Tech-
For computer or software-related inventions, the de-
nologies, 2009 WL 2413623 at *9.
scription should specify that the software functionality
68 The claimed process involved graphically displaying vari-
ances of data from average values wherein the data was X-rayattenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a com-
72 Cybersource Corp., 620 F. Supp. 2d at 1080.
puted tomography scanner. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d at 962-
73 Cornea-Hasegan, No. 2008-004742.
75 E.g., Ex parte Greene, No. 2008-004073 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24,
70 In re Nuijten 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (74 PTCJ 631, 9/28/07) (signal); In re Ferguson, 558
2008-003008 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2009); Cybersource Corp., 620
F.3d 1359, 1366, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (77 PTCJ
F. Supp.2d at 1080 (concerning claim 2).
489, 3/13/09) (paradigm); Ex parte Daughtrey, No. 2008-
76 See Brief of American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae
000202 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 8, 2009) (user interface); Ex parte Laba-
Supporting Respondent, Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, ABA
die, No. 2008-004310 (B.P.A.I. May 6, 2009) (correlator).
Amicus Br. at 12-13 (U.S. amicus brief filed Oct. 2, 2009) (78
71 E.g., Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-7.
is performed by a computer or computer components.
patent or published application, the option of importing
Specificity as to the type of computer component per-
subject matter into the specification is limited to ‘‘non-
forming each function may be helpful in establishing
essential’’ subject matter. In other words, the specifica-
eligibility under the Bilski test.
tion can only be amended to disclose a machine for per-forming process steps as long as one skilled in the art
IV. Fixing Pre-Bilski Applications to Meet the New
would recognize from the original disclosure that the
process is implemented by a machine. The key in mak-
For patent applications filed prior to the Bilski deci-
ing this type of amendment is avoiding (or overcoming)
sion, it can be challenging to meet the new require-
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 1, for lack of
ments for patent eligibility, particularly when no ma-
chine or transformations were expressly described in
If incorporation by reference is not an option, a
patent applicant may submit evidence, such as a decla-
In some cases, there may be sufficient explicit de-
ration by the inventor or a duly qualified technical ex-
scription of a machine, e.g., a computer, such that the
pert, demonstrating that one skilled in the art would un-
machine can be added into the body of the claims. For
derstand the disclosed method to be one performed by
example, patent applications for computer-related in-
a machine. Unlike attorney argument, which can be dis-
ventions sometimes contain a generic description of
regarded, such evidence must be considered by the ex-
computers that are used to perform the claimed
method, and such a generic description may be suffi-
One other option is to reformat the claims. Since Bil-
cient to impart patent eligibility to the claims when the
ski ostensibly does not apply to system and apparatus
general-purpose computer is programmed to become a
claims, in some instances it may be possible for an ap-
plicant to convert his method claims into system claims
For patent applications lacking in an explicit descrip-
to avoid application of the Bilski test. This strategy,
tion of any machine, however, the application may in-
however, is unlikely to succeed where the patent speci-
corporate by reference patents or publications that can
fication does not describe such a system for implement-
be used to bolster the specification and provide support
ing the method and therefore does not provide the req-
for the requisite claim amendments. When an applica-
uisite disclosure of the claimed invention under Section
tion incorporates by reference a U.S. patent or pub-
lished U.S. patent application, any description from the
incorporated references, whether or not the subject
The future of the Bilski machine-or-transformation
matter is ‘‘essential’’ to support the claims, may be im-
test now rests with the Supreme Court. Regardless of
ported into the specification. This option may enable
the outcome of the appeal, however, it is clear that the
importation of the requisite description of a machine,
scope of statutory subject matter under Section 101 has
which can then also be recited in the claims.77 When
been narrowed. The Supreme Court now has a chance
the document incorporated by reference is not a U.S.
to clarify what has been excluded; it may even reject ormodify the Bilski machine-or-transformation test. How
77 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Eighth Ed., Rev.
this will affect the development and protection of cur-
7/2008, at § 608.01(P); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.57.
Stream in india has record high levels of drugs | www.azstarnet.com ® Stream in India has record high levels of drugs | www.azstarnet.com ® Stream in India has record high levels of drugs By Margie Mason PATANCHERU, India — When researchers analyzed vials of treated wastewater taken from a plant where about 90Indian drug factories dump their residues, they were shocked. Enough of a single, powerful antibiotic was beingspewed into one stream each day to tr
2014 health form HEALTH FORM NOTE: ALL MEDICATIONS MUST BE IN ORIGINAL Winter Blast 3rd-6th 6th-8th Youth Camp CONTAINER WITH Winter Blast Jr/Sr. High 9th-12th Youth Camp PHARMACY LABEL! The information on this form is not part of the camper or staff acceptance process, but Developed and reviewed by: American Camp Association, & Association of Camp Nurses gathered to assist