ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{navbox}} | {{navbox}} | ||
| − | '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Corp._v._Excel_Communications,_Inc. | + | '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Corp._v._Excel_Communications,_Inc. 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)". | Cited in [[ESP]]'s brief for [[Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA)]] as "172 F.3d 1352, 1356-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999)". | ||
Revision as of 19:24, 2 November 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."
