Difference between revisions of "Particular machine or transformation"
(* Patentability in the USA after Bilski (That is, after the Supreme Court case, which decide that this wasn't the definitive test)) |
(This ruling was replaced in 2010 by the Supreme Court's ruling on Bilski v. Kappos. The test was defined as:) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{navbox}} | {{navbox}} | ||
| − | The '''particular machine or transformation''' test | + | The '''particular machine or transformation''' test was defined as ''the'' test to determine if a process was [[patentable subject matter]] in the [[USA]]'s [[CAFC]] in the 2008 case [[in re Bilski]]. This ruling was replaced in 2010 by the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court's]] ruling on [[Bilski v. Kappos]]. The test was defined as: |
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
| + | ''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) | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
==Processes and machines== | ==Processes and machines== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
* [[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) | * [[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) | ||
| + | * [[Legislation in the USA]] (§101 is about patentable subject matter) | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 21:05, 21 July 2010
The particular machine or transformation test was defined as the test to determine if a process was patentable subject matter in the USA's CAFC in the 2008 case in re Bilski. This ruling was replaced in 2010 by the Supreme Court's ruling on Bilski v. Kappos. The test was defined as:
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)
- Legislation in the USA (§101 is about patentable subject matter)
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
