ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999"

 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
'''AT&T 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)".
Line 7: Line 6:
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
''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."''
+
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."
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
Line 15: Line 14:
 
==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]]
 +
[[Category:Court rulings by US CAFC]]
 +
[[Category:Court rulings in the USA]]

Latest revision as of 12:47, 2 August 2012

AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc.

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."

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links