|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 12:59 AM EDT |
From the wiki on Bilski:
"Some Federal Circuit decisions, however, had held some
transformations of signals and data patent-eligible. For example, the
Abele decision approved a dependent claim to a method transforming X-
ray attenuation data produced in a X-Y field by an X-ray tomographic
scanner to an image of body organs and bones — while at the same time
the Abele court rejected a more generic and abstract independent claim
to a process of graphically displaying variances from their average values
of unspecified data obtained in an unspecified manner. [15] The court
said that this kind of difference between the two claims was critical to
patent-eligibility. The dependent claim, unlike the independent claim,
involved signal data representing tangible physical objects, which were
electronically manipulated to provide a screen image of the physical
objects. But Bilski's process had nothing to do with such a procedure.
Like State Street, Bilski involved manipulation of financial data.
Bilski's method claim was patent-ineligible because it did not "transform
any article to a different state or thing." Legal obligations (such as
options
and futures contracts) and business risks "cannot meet the test because
they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not
representative of physical objects or substances." Moreover, to the extent
that signals are involved and are transformed, they are not
"representative of any physical object or substance." Accordingly,
Bilski's
claim entirely failed the transformation-machine test"
So, SCOTUS says Bilski was not like the allowed claims in Abele.
Indicating that if it were it would be valid....[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|