According to the US Supreme Court, the phrase "useful Arts" is meant to reference inventions. There is controversy in the Court as to whether or not this includes business methods. In the majority opinion for In re Bilski,In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2008) Justice Anthony Kennedy states "the Patent Act leaves open the possibility that there are at least some processes that can be fairly described as business methods that are within patentable subject matter under §101." In his dissenting opinion, however, Judge Mayer disagreed because he did not consider the claimed business method to be within the useful arts.See also Malla Pollack, "The Multiple Unconstitutionality of Business Method Patents: Common Sense, Congressional Choice, and Constitutional History" 61 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 28 (2002); Micro Law, "What Kinds of Computer-Software-Related Advances (if Any) Are Eligible for Patents? Part II: The Useful Arts Requirement," IEEE MICRO (Sept.-Oct. 2008) (available at URL and URL
According to the US Supreme Court, the phrase "useful Arts" is meant to reference inventions. There is controversy in the Court as to whether or not this includes business methods. In the majority opinion for In re Bilski,In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2008) Justice Anthony Kennedy states "the Patent Act leaves open the possibility that there are at least some processes that can be fairly described as business methods that are within patentable subject matter under §101." At the appellate level, Federal Circuit Court Judge Mayer disagreed because he did not consider the claimed business method to be within the useful arts.See also Malla Pollack, "The Multiple Unconstitutionality of Business Method Patents: Common Sense, Congressional Choice, and Constitutional History" 61 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 28 (2002); Micro Law, "What Kinds of Computer-Software-Related Advances (if Any) Are Eligible for Patents? Part II: The Useful Arts Requirement," IEEE MICRO (Sept.-Oct. 2008) (available at URL and URL
R
In his dissenting opinion, however,
At the appellate level, Federal Circuit Court