Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

Business method patents thriving post-Bilski?

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

Aaron R. Feigelson gives US 7,546,945 (System and method for managing transactions, notice of allowance mailed 11 Feb. 09) as the purest example of a Bilski miss. Keep in mind, Aaron is talking about the NON-USE of Bilski against business method patents: I've commented before that it is not too difficult to find cases of Bilski failures by examiners, and frankly, discussing such patents is losing its novelty.

The first claim of the '945:

A method for managing transactions associated with accounts of an individual, comprising: receiving information associated with the individual; receiving information associated with a first account of the individual; receiving information associated with a second account of the individual; processing the received information associated with the individual, the received information associated with the first account, and the received information associated with the second account; and automatically performing a transaction based upon a result of the processing, wherein the processing is based upon comparisons of one of terms and events of the first and second accounts to maximize a benefit to the individual.

Claim 17:

A system for managing transactions associated with accounts of an individual, comprising: a memory unit; and a processing unit, wherein the processing unit: receives information associated with the individual; receives information associated with a first account of the individual; receives information associated with a second account of the individual; processes the received information associated with the individual, the received information associated with the first account, and the received information associated with the second account; and automatically performs a transaction based upon a result of the processing, wherein the processing is based upon comparisons of one of terms and events of the first and second accounts to maximize a benefit to the individual.

The file history reveals discussion of 102/103, but no Bilski matters. Prior art cited against the application (and overcome) included Cataline (US app 2002/0116331) and Poltorak (US app 2006/0277139).

The case was proscuted by BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP. (Anthony V. Flint was a prosecuting attorney). There is a continuing application from the case: 12/484,355 filed on - which is Pending claims the benefit of 11/298,103

**See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/06/supreme-court-to-hear-bilski.html

Airplane toilet queue patent: it's back!

At the 271Blog: Bilski at the BPAI - What a Mess (Part 1):

It has gotten to the point that a given claim may receive 4 different interpretations from 4 different people, and each of them could be arguably correct. In the case of computer-related inventions, the end result of a patentability analysis is rarely supportable with a single, cogent rationale.

Full post as published by IPBiz on June 18, 2009 (boomark / email).