Assertion: patent's claim | /r/HasProperty | patentable
Facets:
value: potentially
type: DEGREE
value: generally
type: DEGREE
Source sentences:
text: In amending an application in reply to a rejection, the applicant must clearly point out why he or she thinks the amended claims are patentable in view of the state of the art disclosed by the prior references cited or the objections made.
text: In Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining whether a claim comes within the "process" subject matter of the Patent Act and is thus patent eligible.
text: The court did not expressly decide whether Beauregard claims are patent-eligible. ^
text: In the past claims to pure instructions were generally considered not patentable because they were viewed as "printed matter," that is, like a set of instructions written down on paper.
text: If not, the claim is potentially patentable, subject to the other requirements of the patent code.
text: If the examiner has rejected the claim over prior art, a general statement by the applicant that the claim is patentable, without specifically pointing out how the design is patentable over the prior art, does not comply with the rules.