ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999"
(This ruling is one of three which Ben Klemens argues wrongly applied the Diehr ruling by using the "as a whole" test without using the "significant post-solution activity" or "transformation") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{navbox}} | ||
'''AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc.''' (1999, [[USA]]) | '''AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc.''' (1999, [[USA]]) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{footer}} |
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Court cases and litigation]] |
Revision as of 07:14, 14 May 2010
AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc. (1999, USA)
Cited in ESP's brief for Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA) as "172 F.3d 1352, 1356-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999)".
This ruling is one of three which Ben Klemens argues wrongly applied the Diehr ruling by using the "as a whole" test without using the "significant post-solution activity" or "transformation" tests.
Thus, the Alappat inquiry simply requires an examination of the contested claims to see if the claimed subject matter as a whole is a disembodied mathematical concept representing nothing more than a "law of nature" or an "abstract idea," or if the mathematical concept has been reduced to some practical application rendering it "useful."
