Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> The Patent Prospector
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: The Patent ProspectorCompact Prosecution
By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn
On the seventh office action of a competitive pricing patent application,
yet another non-final, a new rejection appears, besides the continual
findings of prior art pieces that never survive reply, owing to their
inadequacy in rendering the claims anticipated or obvious. A "computer-implemented method"
of changing price is not patentable in light of
§101.
The examiner's boilerplate:
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
An invention, which is eligible or patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101, is in the "useful arts" when it is a machine, manufacture, process or composition of matter, which produces a concrete, tangible, and useful result.
In order for a series of steps to be considered a proper process under § 101, a claimed process must either: (1) be tied to another statutory class (such as a particular apparatus) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials). Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972). Thus, to qualify as patent eligible, these processes must positively recite the other statutory class to which it is tied (e.g., by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps), or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed (e.g., by identifying the product or material that is changed to a different state). [The claims] identify neither the apparatus performing the recited steps nor any transformation of underlying materials, and accordingly are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note no mention of Bilski in the case law citation.
Is changing the price of a good a patentable transformation?
Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on January 17, 2009 (boomark / email).

Environment - Great Lakes compact; another BP appeal
Environment - More on "Ban Near on Diverting Water From Great Lakes"
Environment- "Great Lakes Compact loophole allows bottled water"
New commission to make rules on military compact









