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}}
 
 
'''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."

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links