SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  17
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
Patents on Software and
Business Methods
Have The Rules Changed?




                    Karl Larson
                  January 29, 2009



                                     1
Presentation Overview
• Privacy Limitation Justifications
• Introduction
• New Standard Applied
• Significant Questions Raised by Bilski
• Effect on Patent Applications and Existing
  Patents
• Case Study
• Latest News and Current Trends


                                               2
Introduction
Patent Authority


U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §8(8)
The Congress shall have Power…

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries



                                                 3
Introduction
Types of Intellection Property Protection


1.Patent
2.Trademark
3.Copyright
4.Trade Secrets




                                            4
Introduction
Patent Protection


  Inventions that are useful, novel, and nonobvious to a
   person with ordinary skill in the relevant technology.

  Discoveries cannot be laws of nature, mental
   processes, ideas, natural formulas, natural phenomena,
   and methods of calculation.




                                                            5
Acquiring a Patent
Basics




 Patent application must be filed within one year of first
  commercial use, sale, or offer for sale
 Patent claims are examined by patent examiner
 Claims may be rejected in an Office Action by the
  examiner
 Patent application either allowed to issue or abandoned


                                                              6
Acquiring a Patent
Typical rejections

 35 U.S.C. § 101 – patentable subject matter
“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.
 35 U.S.C. § 112 – defects in the specification or
  claims
 35 U.S.C. § 102 – anticipated (not novel) by the prior
  art
 35 U.S.C. § 103 – obvious in view of the prior art


                                                                      7
8
Acquiring a Patent
 Patent Term




 20 years from filing
 Before June 8, 1995, 17 years
  from registration


                                  9
New Standard Applied
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en
banc)
 Under Bilski, the test for patentable subject matter (35 U.S.C.
  § 101) is no longer that a claimed process produce a “useful,
  concrete, and tangible result.”
 The new standard articulated by the majority of the Federal
  Circuit in Bilski is a “machine-or-transformation test,” which
  restricts patenting to inventions that are either:
•   tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or
•   that transform a particular article into a different state or thing
 The involvement of the machine or transformation in the
  claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-
  solution activity.




                                                                          10
Significant Questions Raised

Does “tied to a particular machine” include general-
purpose computers?
 The court did not consider the viability of patenting
  specific functions carried out by a general-purpose
  computer.
 If interpreted narrowly – i.e., requiring the use of
  special-purpose hardware to receive a patent – many if
  not most business method and software patents may not
  survive.
 On the other hand, if read less restrictively, the status
  quo may largely prevail.
                                                              11
Significant Questions Raised

What “articles” can be transformed ?
 The Federal Circuit made it clear that transforming business
  risks were not articles.
 Certainly any physical object or substance is an “article.”
  Something representing a physical object or substance (e.g.,
  a display showing an X-ray of a bone) also qualifies.
 However, the Federal Circuit offered limited guidance
  beyond this as to what articles can be transformed.




                                                                 12
Effect on Pending/Future Patent Applications

• Patents directed to business methods that do not involve the
  use of computers or other machines are clearly at risk and
  likely no longer enforceable.
• Such patents could be placed in reissue or re-examination to
  recast coverage in compliance with the new “machine or
  transformation” test.
• If a continuing application is pending or can be filed, it may
  be used as a vehicle for new patent claims.
• For pending applications, it is worth reviewing the claims to
  determine whether they call for the involvement of a
  computer, the operation of a mechanical device, or the
  transformation of an article to a different state or thing.

                                                                   13
Effect on Pending/Future Patent Applications

• Review of existing patent portfolios of software and
  business method patents advisable.
• If “tied to a particular machine” is interpreted narrowly,
  many existing “method” claims in software patents will be
  unenforceable. This possibility was recognized in the
  dissenting opinion in Bilski by Judge Newman, who said,
  “For the thousands of inventors who obtained patents under
  the court’s now-discarded criteria, their property rights are
  now vulnerable.”
• Increased Ex parte and Inter Partes reexamination requests
  of software and business method patents by non-patent
  owners seeking to invalidate the patents are inevitable.


                                                                  14
Case Study

Consider five different patent claims:
1.      Claims a mathematical computation.
2.      Claims an algorithm – a sequence of steps – without
any specific application or result and not coupled to a
computer.
3.     Same as No. 2 above except now coupled to a general
purpose computer.
4.     Claims an algorithm which manipulates the mechanical
behavior of a robot arm.
5.      Claims an method to predict future stock prices based
on historical market data.

                                                                15
Latest News and Current Trends

 The Federal Circuit’s ruling in Bilski reflects a growing
  tendency among courts to subject patents to increased
  scrutiny.
 The Patent Office has increased its 35 U.S.C. § 101
  rejections over the past couple of years.
 Examiners are interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 101
  inconsistently and the interpretation changes over time.




                                                              16
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
                            Karl Larson
               3000 Thanksgiving Tower
                         1601 Elm Street
                 Dallas, TX 75201-4761
Phone: 214.999.4582 Fax: 214.999.3582
                   klarson@gardere.com




                                           17

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Montana IP Roadshow
Montana IP RoadshowMontana IP Roadshow
Montana IP RoadshowMarcus Simon
 
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent Infringement
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent InfringementIn-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent Infringement
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent InfringementTim Hsieh
 
June 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 NewsletterJune 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
Supreme Court to hear IP case
Supreme Court to hear IP caseSupreme Court to hear IP case
Supreme Court to hear IP caseDaniel Del Re
 
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...WilmerHale
 
engineering biotech and computer patents
engineering biotech and computer patentsengineering biotech and computer patents
engineering biotech and computer patentswelcometofacebook
 
SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004
SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004
SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004SterneKessler
 
Creat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_JanCreat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_JanW. John Keyes
 

Tendances (20)

July 2015 Patent Case Update
July 2015 Patent Case UpdateJuly 2015 Patent Case Update
July 2015 Patent Case Update
 
November 2011 Patent Group Luncheon
November 2011 Patent Group LuncheonNovember 2011 Patent Group Luncheon
November 2011 Patent Group Luncheon
 
May 2015 Administrative Estoppel Presentation
May 2015 Administrative Estoppel PresentationMay 2015 Administrative Estoppel Presentation
May 2015 Administrative Estoppel Presentation
 
Montana IP Roadshow
Montana IP RoadshowMontana IP Roadshow
Montana IP Roadshow
 
Federal Circuit Review | June 2013
Federal Circuit Review | June 2013Federal Circuit Review | June 2013
Federal Circuit Review | June 2013
 
October 2011 Patent Group Luncheon
October 2011 Patent Group LuncheonOctober 2011 Patent Group Luncheon
October 2011 Patent Group Luncheon
 
Patent Prosecution Lunch June 2011
Patent Prosecution Lunch June 2011Patent Prosecution Lunch June 2011
Patent Prosecution Lunch June 2011
 
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent Infringement
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent InfringementIn-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent Infringement
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent Infringement
 
June 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 NewsletterJune 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 Newsletter
 
Patent Group Luncheon April 2011
Patent Group Luncheon April 2011Patent Group Luncheon April 2011
Patent Group Luncheon April 2011
 
Supreme Court to hear IP case
Supreme Court to hear IP caseSupreme Court to hear IP case
Supreme Court to hear IP case
 
Patentable Subject Matter in the United States
Patentable Subject Matter in the United StatesPatentable Subject Matter in the United States
Patentable Subject Matter in the United States
 
October 2014 Patent Luncheon Slides
October 2014 Patent Luncheon SlidesOctober 2014 Patent Luncheon Slides
October 2014 Patent Luncheon Slides
 
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...
 
engineering biotech and computer patents
engineering biotech and computer patentsengineering biotech and computer patents
engineering biotech and computer patents
 
SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004
SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004
SKGF_Presentation_The Gate Intellectual Property Groundwork_2004
 
Creat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_JanCreat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_Jan
 
Knobbe Martens and Forresters Seminar
Knobbe Martens and Forresters SeminarKnobbe Martens and Forresters Seminar
Knobbe Martens and Forresters Seminar
 
January 2015 - Patent Prosecution Lunch Presentation
January 2015 - Patent Prosecution Lunch PresentationJanuary 2015 - Patent Prosecution Lunch Presentation
January 2015 - Patent Prosecution Lunch Presentation
 
Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018
Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018
Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018
 

En vedette

Stop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning Guide
Stop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning GuideStop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning Guide
Stop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning GuideLisa Peyton
 
El sistema circulatorio y respiratorio
El sistema circulatorio y respiratorioEl sistema circulatorio y respiratorio
El sistema circulatorio y respiratorio29011618
 
Pedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderes
Pedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderesPedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderes
Pedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderesDr. Pedro Espino Vargas
 
Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013
Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013
Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013Dr. Pedro Espino Vargas
 
Plantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo tagua
Plantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo taguaPlantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo tagua
Plantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo taguarosa angelica quiceno rodriguez
 
Nostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 Modified
Nostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 ModifiedNostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 Modified
Nostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 ModifiedJAMES EUGENE BARBUSH
 

En vedette (9)

Stop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning Guide
Stop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning GuideStop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning Guide
Stop Flying Blind: Your 2013 Social Media Planning Guide
 
Experience
ExperienceExperience
Experience
 
El sistema circulatorio y respiratorio
El sistema circulatorio y respiratorioEl sistema circulatorio y respiratorio
El sistema circulatorio y respiratorio
 
Pedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderes
Pedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderesPedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderes
Pedro Espino Vargas- Crisis organizacional y líderes
 
Ofício
 Ofício Ofício
Ofício
 
Cole Hardware
Cole HardwareCole Hardware
Cole Hardware
 
Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013
Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013
Pedro Espino Vargas-Exportaciones pesca 2013
 
Plantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo tagua
Plantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo taguaPlantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo tagua
Plantilla de gastos copy rosa angelica quiceno grupo tagua
 
Nostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 Modified
Nostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 ModifiedNostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 Modified
Nostalgia - Double Dog Dare 2012 11 20 Modified
 

Similaire à Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?

Patent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock TheoryPatent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock TheoryRobert DeWitty
 
Are My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still ValidAre My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still Validinsightc5
 
NPE Patent Litigation Latest Developments
NPE Patent Litigation Latest DevelopmentsNPE Patent Litigation Latest Developments
NPE Patent Litigation Latest DevelopmentsParsons Behle & Latimer
 
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPatentsNMore
 
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]Lawrence Kass
 
2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentation2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentationthe nciia
 
AIA - Overview
AIA - OverviewAIA - Overview
AIA - Overviewwindslashz
 
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SterneKessler
 
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents ActPatent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents ActHovey Williams LLP
 
Wipo smes sin_07_3_a
Wipo smes sin_07_3_aWipo smes sin_07_3_a
Wipo smes sin_07_3_aarash1234
 
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law
 
Software Patent Issues
Software Patent IssuesSoftware Patent Issues
Software Patent IssuesTroy Adkins
 
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?WileyReinLLP
 
European and US Patent Law
European and US Patent LawEuropean and US Patent Law
European and US Patent LawIP Dome
 

Similaire à Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed? (20)

Patent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock TheoryPatent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
Patent Eligibility's Common Stock Theory
 
411 on Patents 101
411 on Patents 101411 on Patents 101
411 on Patents 101
 
Section 101
Section 101Section 101
Section 101
 
Prosecution Luncheon November 2012
Prosecution Luncheon November 2012Prosecution Luncheon November 2012
Prosecution Luncheon November 2012
 
Are My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still ValidAre My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still Valid
 
NPE Patent Litigation Latest Developments
NPE Patent Litigation Latest DevelopmentsNPE Patent Litigation Latest Developments
NPE Patent Litigation Latest Developments
 
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
 
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
120208-NYLJ-Kass-and-Reese[2]
 
2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentation2009 Nciia Presentation
2009 Nciia Presentation
 
Business Method Patents
Business Method PatentsBusiness Method Patents
Business Method Patents
 
AIA - Overview
AIA - OverviewAIA - Overview
AIA - Overview
 
August 2014 Patent Prosecution Lunch Presentation
August 2014 Patent Prosecution Lunch PresentationAugust 2014 Patent Prosecution Lunch Presentation
August 2014 Patent Prosecution Lunch Presentation
 
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
 
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents ActPatent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
 
Wipo smes sin_07_3_a
Wipo smes sin_07_3_aWipo smes sin_07_3_a
Wipo smes sin_07_3_a
 
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
Protecting Your Intellectual Property: Cost-Saving Techniques, Legal Updates ...
 
Software Patent Issues
Software Patent IssuesSoftware Patent Issues
Software Patent Issues
 
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
Go Ask Alice: The End of Computer-Implemented U.S. Patents?
 
IPR Presentation
IPR PresentationIPR Presentation
IPR Presentation
 
European and US Patent Law
European and US Patent LawEuropean and US Patent Law
European and US Patent Law
 

Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?

  • 1. Patents on Software and Business Methods Have The Rules Changed? Karl Larson January 29, 2009 1
  • 2. Presentation Overview • Privacy Limitation Justifications • Introduction • New Standard Applied • Significant Questions Raised by Bilski • Effect on Patent Applications and Existing Patents • Case Study • Latest News and Current Trends 2
  • 3. Introduction Patent Authority U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §8(8) The Congress shall have Power… Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries 3
  • 4. Introduction Types of Intellection Property Protection 1.Patent 2.Trademark 3.Copyright 4.Trade Secrets 4
  • 5. Introduction Patent Protection  Inventions that are useful, novel, and nonobvious to a person with ordinary skill in the relevant technology.  Discoveries cannot be laws of nature, mental processes, ideas, natural formulas, natural phenomena, and methods of calculation. 5
  • 6. Acquiring a Patent Basics  Patent application must be filed within one year of first commercial use, sale, or offer for sale  Patent claims are examined by patent examiner  Claims may be rejected in an Office Action by the examiner  Patent application either allowed to issue or abandoned 6
  • 7. Acquiring a Patent Typical rejections  35 U.S.C. § 101 – patentable subject matter “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.  35 U.S.C. § 112 – defects in the specification or claims  35 U.S.C. § 102 – anticipated (not novel) by the prior art  35 U.S.C. § 103 – obvious in view of the prior art 7
  • 8. 8
  • 9. Acquiring a Patent Patent Term  20 years from filing  Before June 8, 1995, 17 years from registration 9
  • 10. New Standard Applied In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en banc)  Under Bilski, the test for patentable subject matter (35 U.S.C. § 101) is no longer that a claimed process produce a “useful, concrete, and tangible result.”  The new standard articulated by the majority of the Federal Circuit in Bilski is a “machine-or-transformation test,” which restricts patenting to inventions that are either: • tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or • that transform a particular article into a different state or thing  The involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra- solution activity. 10
  • 11. Significant Questions Raised Does “tied to a particular machine” include general- purpose computers?  The court did not consider the viability of patenting specific functions carried out by a general-purpose computer.  If interpreted narrowly – i.e., requiring the use of special-purpose hardware to receive a patent – many if not most business method and software patents may not survive.  On the other hand, if read less restrictively, the status quo may largely prevail. 11
  • 12. Significant Questions Raised What “articles” can be transformed ?  The Federal Circuit made it clear that transforming business risks were not articles.  Certainly any physical object or substance is an “article.” Something representing a physical object or substance (e.g., a display showing an X-ray of a bone) also qualifies.  However, the Federal Circuit offered limited guidance beyond this as to what articles can be transformed. 12
  • 13. Effect on Pending/Future Patent Applications • Patents directed to business methods that do not involve the use of computers or other machines are clearly at risk and likely no longer enforceable. • Such patents could be placed in reissue or re-examination to recast coverage in compliance with the new “machine or transformation” test. • If a continuing application is pending or can be filed, it may be used as a vehicle for new patent claims. • For pending applications, it is worth reviewing the claims to determine whether they call for the involvement of a computer, the operation of a mechanical device, or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. 13
  • 14. Effect on Pending/Future Patent Applications • Review of existing patent portfolios of software and business method patents advisable. • If “tied to a particular machine” is interpreted narrowly, many existing “method” claims in software patents will be unenforceable. This possibility was recognized in the dissenting opinion in Bilski by Judge Newman, who said, “For the thousands of inventors who obtained patents under the court’s now-discarded criteria, their property rights are now vulnerable.” • Increased Ex parte and Inter Partes reexamination requests of software and business method patents by non-patent owners seeking to invalidate the patents are inevitable. 14
  • 15. Case Study Consider five different patent claims: 1. Claims a mathematical computation. 2. Claims an algorithm – a sequence of steps – without any specific application or result and not coupled to a computer. 3. Same as No. 2 above except now coupled to a general purpose computer. 4. Claims an algorithm which manipulates the mechanical behavior of a robot arm. 5. Claims an method to predict future stock prices based on historical market data. 15
  • 16. Latest News and Current Trends  The Federal Circuit’s ruling in Bilski reflects a growing tendency among courts to subject patents to increased scrutiny.  The Patent Office has increased its 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections over the past couple of years.  Examiners are interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 101 inconsistently and the interpretation changes over time. 16
  • 17. Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP Karl Larson 3000 Thanksgiving Tower 1601 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75201-4761 Phone: 214.999.4582 Fax: 214.999.3582 klarson@gardere.com 17