User:Charles R Talley/notes0207: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
**''Structure'' created with knowledge | **''Structure'' created with knowledge | ||
**''Application'' of the law | **''Application'' of the law | ||
**Process resulting in ''changes'' (transformations) in materials. | |||
*Claims 8 & 13 are too fundamental and sweeping, so granting a patent would eliminate too much possible innovation/invention. | *Claims 8 & 13 are too fundamental and sweeping, so granting a patent would eliminate too much possible innovation/invention. | ||
*Process alone is often too fundamental; usually need to include an application | |||
*Patentability of Computer Programs | |||
**No current classification; so unpatentable | |||
**PTO is freaking out | |||
Latest revision as of 17:27, 7 February 2011
Gottschalk v. Benson
- 1972
- Relates primarily to 35 U.S.C. 101 (inventions patentable)
- process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter
- "Process" is difficult to define
- Recently, methods of doing business
- Computer programs
- Article !, Section 8 of Constitution
- Benson was seeking the patent; Gottschalk at PTO denied; CCPA granted; USSC denied
Conclusions
- Can't patent an idea
- Would stop all innovative progress
- For something to be patentable, you have to apply ideas to something new and useful.
- Not In 101
- Scientific truth
- Mathematical expression of a scientific truth
- Idea (reduction to practice)
- Phenomena of nature (even newly discovered)
- In 101
- Structure created with knowledge
- Application of the law
- Process resulting in changes (transformations) in materials.
- Claims 8 & 13 are too fundamental and sweeping, so granting a patent would eliminate too much possible innovation/invention.
- Process alone is often too fundamental; usually need to include an application
- Patentability of Computer Programs
- No current classification; so unpatentable
- PTO is freaking out
