Bilski Brief: Professor Lee A. Hollaar and IEEE-USA as Amici Curiae in Support of Affirmance (Robins Homework 5)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Lee A Hollaar, the author of the brief is a professor in CSE at the university of Utah. He also teaches IP.

Hollaar is concerned that any decision in this case will only further blur the lines on patents of computer-related things

Hollaar is also the former chair of IEEE, a non-profit of electrical engineers which seeks to offer advice and lobbying on how laws should advance the science and technology of computers.


Hollaar says years of cases reguarding computers have been confusing and have blurred the law. He thinks this decision should clear up the law by bringing it back to its simple roots.

Claims A process is patentable subject matter when it involves making or using a machine, manufacture or composition of matter.

Thinks patent offices should spend more time on 102 and 103 than 101. Decision about business methods, useful concrete, technological and such have furthur convoluted the law.

there are 3 additional rules to patentability this way: 1.Claims drawn to the other categories (machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) are always statutory subject matter.

2.A claim that covers both statutory and nonstatutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.

3.While using a machine may make a claim statutory, if the method itself is known in the prior art, simply adding a machine to perform the method does not necessarily make the claim nonobvious.

Conclusion about Bilski: Reject the patent because it is not limited to use with a certain machine.