Difference between revisions of "2/14/11 : Bilski v. Kappos (kyergler)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "== Class Notes == This case went into detail about the validity/invalidity of the "machine-or-transformation test" which argued the invalidity of the Bilski patent. The patent ...")
 
 
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
*Machine-or-Transformation Test
 
*Machine-or-Transformation Test
 +
**Not stated or properly inferred in section 101

Latest revision as of 13:37, 14 February 2011

Class Notes

This case went into detail about the validity/invalidity of the "machine-or-transformation test" which argued the invalidity of the Bilski patent. The patent was a hedging process that included a computer program. There were 3 different concurring verdicts, but the reasoning behind them were pretty different. The first opinion agreed with the use of the "M-or-T test" as the sole patent-identifying test, whereas the second opinion didn't like it. Plus, the second opinion argued that any business method has historically been denied patentability, and that should not change today.

The Examiner, Patent Office, and all courts turned down the patent.

  • Machine-or-Transformation Test
    • Not stated or properly inferred in section 101