![]() |
The Law Firm ofLouis Ventre, Jr.Registered Patent Attorney BUSINESS METHOD PATENT | ![]() |
BUSINESS FUNCTIONS, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DATA PROCESSING
The U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos (Supreme Court, 28-JUN-2010, 08-964) recognized that some business methods are patentable despite distancing itself from any of the State Street legal principles set down to more particularly define what is patentable. The Supreme Court stated: "This Court has more than once cautioned that courts should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.” (Bilski, slip opinion, p.1, internal quotations deleted). The Supreme Court’s precedents provide three specific exceptions to §101’s broad patent-eligibility principles: “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980). As with other inventions, a business method invention to be patentable must be new, useful, non-obvious, and not indefinite. But, even meeting those conditions, the practical result of the Bilski decision is likely that patentability rejections for business method patents will rest on whether or not what is claimed is an attempt to patent an abstract idea.
The Bilski decision states that the earlier "machine-or-transformation" test for patent-eligible subject matter offers "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101." However, it is "not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible process." Nevertheless, on 28-JUN-2010, immediately after the Bilski decision was issued by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued examiner guidance stating: "Examiners should continue to examine patent applications for compliance with section 101 using the existing guidance concerning the machine-or-transformation test as a tool for determining whether the claimed invention is a process under section 101." Failing this test will likely cause a finding that it is an abstract idea and is not patentable. So, while the "machine-or-transformation test is not the "exclusive test," it is likely to be the test applied to determine patentability, subject to rebuttal by the applicant. The machine-or-transformation test was set out by the Federal Circuit in In re Bilski , (Fed. Cir. 30-OCT-2008): "A claimed process is surely patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 if: "(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or "(2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." As before, simply adding a computer to a method claim may not meet the test because Federal Circuit said that "the use of a specific machine or transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope to impart patent-eligibility." Particularly vulnerable inventions involve adding a computer for what might otherwise be performed in the mind of an individual. For example, "a claimed process wherein all of the process steps may be performed entirely in the human mind is obviously not tied to any machine and does not transform any article into a different state or thing. As a result, it would not be patent-eligible under § 101." Business method patent applications are filed as utility patent applications. Business method inventions are not categorized in "business method" claims, but rather they are treated like any other invention claiming a process in a series of steps. However, most fall within patent classification 705 and in that classification, about 5,000 U.S. patents issued in the 5 year period spanning 2001 to 2005. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, automated financial/management business data processing method patents did not suddenly spring into being in 1998. Rather, the first cited are 1889 patents (395,781; 395,782; and 395,783) involving automated the tabulating and compiling of statistical information for businesses and enterprises. DEFINITION OF BUSINESS METHOD
The European Patent Office, acting for 32 member states, rejects patent applications which do not have a "technical character." An invention must relate to a "technical" problem and have "technical" features. While "technical" is not defined in the law, it has been interpreted to require a physical feature that is useful to solve an industrial problem. Article 52 of the European Patent Convention contains an explicit bar to patenting "methods of doing business." Perhaps a bit more liberal is Australia, where a process claim on a business method must have "A physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation," according to Federal Court of Australia - Full Court in Grant v Commissioner of Patents (FCAFC 120, July 18, 2006). In Japan, patentable subject matter involves "a technical idea utilizing a law of nature." Business methods are generally regarded as software related inventions and are considered to have a technical nature. TYPICAL BUSINESS METHOD CATEGORIES
1. Determining Who Your Customers Are, and The Products/Services They Need/Want
2. Informing Customers You Exist, Showing Them Your Products & Services, and Getting Them to Purchase
3. Exchanging Money and Credit Before, During, and After the Business Transaction
4. Tracking Resources, Money, And Products
SOFTWARE RELATED PATENT
Home | How
to Communicate | Email to: lventre@lventre.com | Useful
Links Click Here to Fill-In a Web Form Email © 2006 Louis Ventre, Jr.
This file last modified 07/09/10. |