decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
To quote Diehr | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
To quote Diehr
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )