Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] FYI - a purely software embodiment is not patent eligible

Can you give us an English translation of this, please?  Specifically,
on what grounds did they decide that software is nonstatutory (I'm
guessing this means you can't patent it?) but a web-based system
(which is also software...) is?

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang <hsuanyeh at> wrote:
> 1. ?In a recent administrative decision, the US patent office held that a
> "purely software embodiment" is not patent eligible.
> Quote:
> "The clear import of this discussion is that the invention can exist solely
> as software. ?Reciting descriptive material per se (e.g., computer
> programs) is nonstatutory. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360-61 (Fed.
> Cir. 1994). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4, 17) that claim 1
> encompasses a purely software embodiment and find that claim 1, as a whole,
> is directed to non-statutory subject matter under ? 101." ?Ex Parte Cohen,
> 2011 WL 6012432 (BPAI November 29, 2011) at 5.
> 2. ?On the flip side, a "web based system" is patent eligible.
> Quote:
> "We are persuaded by Appellants' argument, for much the same reasons as to
> the web-based system, set forth at claim 1. ?In the context of these two
> method claims, we find that by providing a web-based system or providing,
> on a web-based system, the methods are tied to a particular machine of the
> specially-programmed computer. ?As such, we further find that the computer
> is recited in the claim so inextricably connected to a discussion board and
> the associated functions which occur by claim recitation on it so as not to
> be an abstraction. ?See Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (June 2010).
> ?We therefore find that claims 6 and 11 recite eligible subject matter, and
> reverse the rejection of these claims under
> Section 101." ?Ex Parte Vogel, 2011 WL 6012447 (BPAI November 21, 2011) at
> 7 and 8.
> 3.

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /