Patent Law Practice Center

PTAB Questions Machine-or-Transformation Claims

Just over three years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bilski v. Kappos. The critical question presented to the Court for consideration was whether the Federal Circuit erred by creating the so-called “machine or transformation” test, which requires a process to be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform an article into a different state or thing, in order to be patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court held that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under §101, but is an important clue, thereby overruling the Federal Circuit who had earlier ruled that the machine or transformation test was the test to determine whether an invention is patentable subject matter.

But what practical effect has the Supreme Court ruling in Bilski v. Kappos had? Truthfully, not much. at least in terms of the day-to-day approach of patent attorneys and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  (Certainly, the decision was important in that it preserved the patentability of at least some business methods and preserved the patentability of software.)

While the machine-or-transformation test is now only an important clue, it really has become a safe harbor for practitioners.  The assumption has been that you satisfy the machine-or-transformation test announced by the Federal Circuit and you have a patentable invention. Fail to satisfy the machine-or-transformation test and you may have a patentable invention, but neither the Patent Office nor any court has yet found an invention that failed the machine-or-transformation test to be patentable.

(more…)

Machine-Or-Transformation Test After Myriad: Implications To The Prosecution Of Process Claims

Michael Davitz, Partner at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider and Practice Center Contributor, recently sent in this article he wrote with colleague’s Josephine Liu and Stacie Ropka discussing recent case law on the patentability of process claims.

Not all inventions are patentable.  The Federal Circuit recently handed down its decision in Myriad[i] and the Supreme Court will be hearing Prometheus[ii] in the term beginning in October 2011.  The issues in both Myriad and Prometheus highlight the difficulty in determining when a claim directed to a process is patentable subject matter under § 101, a determination that is particularly troubling in many inventions related to the life sciences.

A first step for granting a patent is determining whether or not a patent application claims patentable subject-matter.  In a line of cases from the late 70s to early 80s and reaffirmed in 2010, the Supreme Court explained that 35 U.S.C. § 101 is to be interpreted broadly and has articulated only three exceptions to what is patentable:  (1) laws of nature; (2) physical phenomena; and (3) abstract ideas.[iii] With respect to process claims, the line between patentable “processes” and unpatentable principles or abstract ideas is not always clear.  The Supreme Court has yet to provide a concrete test by which such a distinction can be made.[iv] It did, however, provide a hint in Gottschalk v. Benson stating that “[t]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.”[v] From this pronouncement, the Federal Circuit formally presented and applied the machine-or-transformation test in In re Bilski.[vi] (more…)

Bilski’s Lessons: Three Months Later

Kenneth W. Brothers, a Partner at Dickstein Shapiro LLP and a presenter at PLI’s upcoming 5th Annual Patent Law Institute, sent in this article he wrote along with Philip G. Hampton, II wherein they discuss what has happened since the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision.  Here is an excerpt and a link to the full article.

After the Supreme Court issued its decision on Bilski v. Kappos, we predicted that much ink would be spilled analyzing the fractured opinions and opaque basis for the majority decision.  While the PTO has issued interim guidelines, since June, only one district court has attempted to apply the Bilski decision and the decision has only been mentioned in two Federal Circuit decisions.

Applying Bilski. The patent bar will devote years deciphering this decision, since the majority decision failed to enunciate either a clear standard for patentability under §101 or clear guidelines for determining what is a valid business method patent.  We expect that lower court decisions likely will fall into three general categories:  (1) adherence to the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test; (2) seat-of-the-pants determinations of whether the patent-in-suit is directed to abstract; or (3) a genuine attempt to weigh multiple factors to determine patentability. (more…)

RCT v. Microsoft – Fed. Cir. Attempts to Shift Focus Away from MOT Test

The following post comes from Clement S. Roberts (Partner at Durie Tangri and Practice Center Contributor).

On December 8 the Federal Circuit issued its first post-Bilski opinion on patentable subject matter when it decided Research Corporation Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft .

In RCT the court was asked whether RCT’s patents on digital image halftoning were directed to patentable subject matter.  Digital image halftoning is a technique for displaying tones (either shades of grey or colors) that lie between those that a monitor or printer can natively produce by creating a matrix of dots that blur together when viewed from a distance.  The patent was directed to a method for creating a halftoned image using a mask (essentially a series of prearranged dots of known values which can be compared to the pixels in a given image) and, in particular, for creating an improved mask through the use of a particular kind of mathematical operation.  For example, claim 1 of one of the two relevant patents called for:

A method for the halftoning of gray scale images by utilizing a pixel-by-pixel comparison of the image against a blue noise mask in which the blue notice mask is comprised of a random non-deterministic, non-white noise single valued function which is designed to produce visually pleasing dot profiles when thresholded at any level of said gray scale images. (more…)

Cursory analysis of “abstract” by Bilski Court followed in Ultramercial case

The following guest post comes from Stuart Meyer,  a Partner with Fenwick & West.

Not saying, “We told you so, but…”

A decision from the Central District of California in August in the Ultramercial v Hulu case showcases a concern that we expressed about how cursory reliance on a claim being unpatentable because it is “abstract” can lead to unfortunate results. An amicus brief we filed in the Bilski case warned of the problems that could result if the Court applied the term “abstract” without providing a clear indication of the sense in which that term was being used. See amicus brief of On Time Systems.

A claim that is just a vague expression of a concept may be considered “abstract” and therefore correctly be held unpatentable. On the other hand, there are many claims that clearly are eligible for patent protection even though they deal with abstractions. For instance, any use of a sensor deals with something that is abstract – the example we gave in the brief was that a signal produced by a wind sensor is an abstraction of the force of air molecules striking the sensor. Just because a claim is based on a signal from a wind sensor does not mean that it is abstract and therefore unpatentable. (more…)