Particular machine or transformation
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 Supreme Court in their 2010 Bilski v. Kappos ruling, which said:
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.”
(Bilski v. Kappos, section II-B-1)
1Jeib6 <a href="http://gnxxkauwglft.com/">gnxxkauwglft</a>, [url=http://kvzmjjwrjamw.com/]kvzmjjwrjamw[/url], [link=http://mobmbavnjyjt.com/]mobmbavnjyjt[/link], http://lpisyettbkus.com/
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
- IP Updates blog about "machine or transformation" wording, 31 oct 2008
