ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999"
(* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Corp._v._Excel_Communications,_Inc. AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc.], '''Wikipedia''') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{navbox}} | {{navbox}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
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)". | ||
| Line 15: | Line 13: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* The ruling: http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1338.html | * The ruling: http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1338.html | ||
| + | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Corp._v._Excel_Communications,_Inc. AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc.], '''Wikipedia''' | ||
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
[[Category:Court ruling analyses]] | [[Category:Court ruling analyses]] | ||
Revision as of 19:41, 21 February 2012
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."
