ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "ATT v. Excel ruling by US CAFC on 14 April 1999"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
'''AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc.''' | '''AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc.''' | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
{{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."
