Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents

碩士 === 中原大學 === 財經法律研究所 === 101 === Business methods and computer software applications may fall within the “process” statutory class under section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code. Nonetheless, U.S. case law has also held that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and physical phenomena have be...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Guan-Jou Chen, 陳冠州
Other Authors: Shang-Jyh Liu
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2013
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/47356719599162676476
id ndltd-TW-101CYCU5308082
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-101CYCU53080822015-10-13T22:40:30Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/47356719599162676476 Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents 美國商業方法與電腦軟體之專利適格性研究 Guan-Jou Chen 陳冠州 碩士 中原大學 財經法律研究所 101 Business methods and computer software applications may fall within the “process” statutory class under section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code. Nonetheless, U.S. case law has also held that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and physical phenomena have been found to be outside of the four statutory categories of patentable invention. Business methods and software programs may be considered as artificially created procedures or an implementation or representation of a thought process or mental activities and may thus be considered different from, for example, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter that are concrete and tangible. Consequently, business methods and software programs that seek patent protection for their abstract ideas may be deemed as patent ineligible for their failure to meet the requirements under section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code in the United States. Since State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group (Fed. Cir. 1988), U.S. case law has not actually delineated what actually constitutes an abstract idea or mental activity that has been found patent ineligible under section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Bilski decision established the machine-or-transformation test to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Upon further appeal, the United States Supreme Court holds that the machine-or-transformation test may be a useful and important clue but is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible process under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The U.S. Supreme Court Bilski decision renders U.S. patent practitioners to continue to seek the boundaries of patent eligibility. In order to better understand the uncertain boundaries of patent eligibility under the U.S. patent law jurisprudence, this research examines the Bilski decision and various guidelines published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in response to the Bilski decision, analyzes various limitations under the current set of laws, and explore possible future development of patent eligibility under the U.S. patent jurisprudence. Shang-Jyh Liu 劉尚志 2013 學位論文 ; thesis 88 zh-TW
collection NDLTD
language zh-TW
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 碩士 === 中原大學 === 財經法律研究所 === 101 === Business methods and computer software applications may fall within the “process” statutory class under section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code. Nonetheless, U.S. case law has also held that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and physical phenomena have been found to be outside of the four statutory categories of patentable invention. Business methods and software programs may be considered as artificially created procedures or an implementation or representation of a thought process or mental activities and may thus be considered different from, for example, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter that are concrete and tangible. Consequently, business methods and software programs that seek patent protection for their abstract ideas may be deemed as patent ineligible for their failure to meet the requirements under section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code in the United States. Since State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group (Fed. Cir. 1988), U.S. case law has not actually delineated what actually constitutes an abstract idea or mental activity that has been found patent ineligible under section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Bilski decision established the machine-or-transformation test to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Upon further appeal, the United States Supreme Court holds that the machine-or-transformation test may be a useful and important clue but is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible process under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The U.S. Supreme Court Bilski decision renders U.S. patent practitioners to continue to seek the boundaries of patent eligibility. In order to better understand the uncertain boundaries of patent eligibility under the U.S. patent law jurisprudence, this research examines the Bilski decision and various guidelines published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in response to the Bilski decision, analyzes various limitations under the current set of laws, and explore possible future development of patent eligibility under the U.S. patent jurisprudence.
author2 Shang-Jyh Liu
author_facet Shang-Jyh Liu
Guan-Jou Chen
陳冠州
author Guan-Jou Chen
陳冠州
spellingShingle Guan-Jou Chen
陳冠州
Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents
author_sort Guan-Jou Chen
title Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents
title_short Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents
title_full Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents
title_fullStr Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents
title_full_unstemmed Patentability of Business Method and Software of US Patents
title_sort patentability of business method and software of us patents
publishDate 2013
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/47356719599162676476
work_keys_str_mv AT guanjouchen patentabilityofbusinessmethodandsoftwareofuspatents
AT chénguānzhōu patentabilityofbusinessmethodandsoftwareofuspatents
AT guanjouchen měiguóshāngyèfāngfǎyǔdiànnǎoruǎntǐzhīzhuānlìshìgéxìngyánjiū
AT chénguānzhōu měiguóshāngyèfāngfǎyǔdiànnǎoruǎntǐzhīzhuānlìshìgéxìngyánjiū
_version_ 1718079163469922304