|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:46 AM EST |
I would beg some indulgence in that my two questions are intended to determine
which approach the USPTO purports to follow in determining patentable subject
matter.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit has ruled that "computer +
program" creates a new machine (in re Alappat), whereas the Supreme Court
has addressed the analysis of "computer + program" from the standpoint
of it comprising a statutory process (Benson, Flook, and Diehr).
My understanding is the USPTO has sidestepped this disparity by talking about
the software providing the "means" of the invention (something the
courts have not addressed), but does this actually address the law as enacted by
Congress? The "means" of a machine would seem to be a radically
different concept than the "means" of a process. It is unclear that
this USPTO concoction of the "means of an invention" -- regardless
whether the invention is a process or a machine -- was ever intended by Congress
to be patentable subject matter (there being no mention of it in Title 35).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|