ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Particular machine or transformation"

m (Reverted edits by 142.22.16.52 (talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
(XtWFOyYggKxq)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
LhGs9I <a href="http://mpgqaucaizbo.com/">mpgqaucaizbo</a>, [url=http://wucxcayjvopo.com/]wucxcayjvopo[/url], [link=http://otnmllumjgzt.com/]otnmllumjgzt[/link], http://qkuqvlfeymps.com/
The '''particular machine or transformation''' test is an "important clue" as to the patentability of an idea. It was defined as "''the''" test by the [[CAFC]] in the 2008 [[in re Bilski]] case, but this was reversed by the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] in their 2010 [[Bilski v. Kappos]] ruling, which said:
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
This Court’s precedents establish that the machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101. The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible “process.”<br />(Bilski v. Kappos, section II-B-1)
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
==Definition of the test==
 
 
 
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==
 
 
 
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"''.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs101.html</ref>
 
 
 
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)
 
* [[Legislation in the USA]] (§101 is about patentable subject matter)
 
 
 
==External links==
 
* Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_test Machine-or-transformation test]
 
* http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf - the 2008 CAFC Bilsk ruling
 
* [http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/16/how-the-machine-or-transformation-test-in-bilski-is-failing/ How The “Machine-Or-Transformation” Test In Bilski Is Failing]
 
* [http://ip-updates.blogspot.com/2008/10/federal-circuit-adopts-machine-or.html IP Updates blog about "machine or transformation" wording], 31 oct 2008
 
 
 
===Court rulings based on the test===
 
* http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/12/while-supremes-ponder-bilski-is-still-slayin-at-the-local-level.html
 
 
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
 
 
 
 
{{footer}}
 
[[Category:Bilski]]
 

Revision as of 13:39, 14 January 2011

LhGs9I <a href="http://mpgqaucaizbo.com/">mpgqaucaizbo</a>, [url=http://wucxcayjvopo.com/]wucxcayjvopo[/url], [link=http://otnmllumjgzt.com/]otnmllumjgzt[/link], http://qkuqvlfeymps.com/