There are physical processes.
You must mix the dough
then knead
the dough
then bake the dough
If Congress intended:
you can
patent the process of the human performing those steps
Then yes - I
disagree with congress, agree with you, and that should be put a stop
to.
I build a machine with a conveyer belt. The first part has a hopper
where the ingredients are mixed. The second part is a location with a coule
"arms" in it that "kneads the dough". The third is the oven.
If that's
what Congress intended - and the machine is already protected by a patent. Then
I agree with you again - the process is adding nothing to the art and should not
be patented.
One definition of process:
1.Perform a series of
mechanical or chemical operations on (something) in order to change or preserve
it: "the stages in processing the wool".
This would seem to move into the
area of "patenting a recipe" - which I believe shouldn't be done.
It's
been very difficult for me to imagine some physical process wherein you deserve
a patent for the process but can't get a patent on the physical "machine" you
created to perform that process. Perhaps someone else will be able to think of
an appropriate situation where the process ends up resulting in something that
reasonably makes sense with regards being able to patent.
Bottom line: I
haven't fully formed the opinion that "process" should be removed from 101
patent eligibility. But due to the lack of a reasonable situation: I'm
certainly leaning in that direction.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|