ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Particular machine or transformation"
m (Reverted edits by 213.30.209.82 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran) |
(* Patentability in the USA after Bilski (That is, after the Supreme Court case, which decide that this wasn't the definitive test)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{navbox}}The '''particular machine or transformation''' test refers to the test described by the 2008 ruling of the [[USA]]'s CAFC in the case [[in re Bilski]]. | + | {{navbox}} |
| + | The '''particular machine or transformation''' test refers to the test described by the 2008 ruling of the [[USA]]'s CAFC in the case [[in re Bilski]]. | ||
:''A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.'' Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 (quoted in the CAFC's Bilski ruling) | :''A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.'' Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 (quoted in the CAFC's Bilski ruling) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
The particular-machine-or-transformation test only applies to "processes". Thus, it seems that if a programmed computer was claimed as a "machine", it wouldn't have to pass the particular-machine-or-transformation test. This issue was discussed, and there was either confusion or disagreement about it at the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]'s hearing of [[Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA)|Bilski v. Kappos]] in 2009. ([http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/ hearing transcript]) | The particular-machine-or-transformation test only applies to "processes". Thus, it seems that if a programmed computer was claimed as a "machine", it wouldn't have to pass the particular-machine-or-transformation test. This issue was discussed, and there was either confusion or disagreement about it at the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]'s hearing of [[Bilski v. Kappos (2009, USA)|Bilski v. Kappos]] in 2009. ([http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/ hearing transcript]) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[Patentability in the USA after Bilski]] (That is, after the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] case, which decide that this wasn't the definitive test) | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| Line 18: | Line 23: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| − | + | {{reflist}} | |
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
[[Category:Bilski]] | [[Category:Bilski]] | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 21 July 2010
The particular machine or transformation test refers to the test described by the 2008 ruling of the USA's CAFC in the case in re Bilski.
- A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 (quoted in the CAFC's Bilski ruling)
Contents
Processes and machines
Legislation in the USA allows the USPTO to grant patents for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof".[1]
The particular-machine-or-transformation test only applies to "processes". Thus, it seems that if a programmed computer was claimed as a "machine", it wouldn't have to pass the particular-machine-or-transformation test. This issue was discussed, and there was either confusion or disagreement about it at the Supreme Court's hearing of Bilski v. Kappos in 2009. (hearing transcript)
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Patentability in the USA after Bilski (That is, after the Supreme Court case, which decide that this wasn't the definitive test)
External links
- Wikipedia: Machine-or-transformation test
- http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf - the 2008 CAFC Bilsk ruling
- How The “Machine-Or-Transformation” Test In Bilski Is Failing
