Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patentablydefined.com
(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
: Patentablydefined.comPost Bilski Prosecution Strategy ? Can It Really Be This Simple?
By mike
© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis
Post Bilski, only methods ?tied to a particular machine or apparatus? or that ?transform a particular article into a different state or thing? remain patent-eligible. One option to satisfy this “machine-or-transformation test” is to define a method so that it is tied to a device.
An efficient way to accomplish this is to tie a single operation of the claimed method to a device. And, according to the BPAI, in the case of a computerized method, this may be accomplished merely by reciting the output of a solution from the system. That?s right. In Ex Parte Dickerson, a final decision issued by the Board earlier this month, a § 101 rejection of the following claim was reversed:
23. A computerized method for identifying a solution to address exposed performance gaps of a company in a specific industry, comprising:
first identifying a plurality of operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the operational metrics includes a factor used to measure health or viability of a generic company in the specific industry, wherein the specific industry is a grocery store industry, wherein the operational metrics include at least one of a rate of inventory turnover and a number of customers per day;
assembling a set of solutions for application by the specific industry, wherein the set includes one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service;assessing impacts of application of the set of solutions on the operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the assessing includes determining which of the set of solutions has a negative impact on an operational metric and determining which of the set of solutions has a positive impact on the operational metric;
after identifying, assembling, and assessing, then comparing a current operational performance of the company to an operational performance of another company within the specific industry to obtain at least one performance gap, wherein the operational performance includes a performance of a company based upon the operational metric for the specific industry;
identifying a solution based upon the impacts to address the exposed performance gaps, wherein the solution is at least one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service that impacts a problem in a positive manner; and
outputting the solution from the computer system.
The Board’s rationale:
?We find that claims 23, 29 and 30 a computerized method which includes a step of outputting information from a computer (FF 7 and 9-10) and therefore, are tied to a particular machine or apparatus.?
My question to you, the readers of this blog, is could satisfying § 101 be this simple? And, if not, what other strategies have you found effective? Please leave a comment if you have a successful strategy to share in a follow up post.
The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, PC
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com
Add this blog to your Technorati favorites
Full post as published by Patentablydefined.com on July 27, 2009 (boomark / email).
Washington Post WPO Securities Fraud
Washington Post WPO
Washington Post 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Washington Post 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
PTDS class action
Veterans Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Class Action

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Bilski, Implicating Tax Strategy Patents
Aprill: Bilski Means More Uncertainty for Tax Strategy Patents
Guest Post: Ten Reasons the Supreme Court Should Take In re Bilski
Beale: Is Bilski Likely the Final Word on Tax Strategy Patents
Gardner: Patent Bar Should Use Its High Priced Skills to Overcome Bilski et al.








