|
|
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]]
| |