SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008
-
Upload
sternekessler -
Category
Technology
-
view
230 -
download
0
Transcript of SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008
![Page 1: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
May 5, 2008
In re BilskiGlenn J. Perry, Director
![Page 2: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
![Page 3: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
In re Bilski (Fed. Cir 2007-1130)
Chronology�
�US Application 08/833,892�Claims 1-11 finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as non-statutory
� April 3, 2003 BPAI hearing � no decision
� March 8, 2006 BPAI Hearing Appeal No. 2002-2257
� September 6, 2006 BPAI decision affirming final rejection
� October 1, 2007 oral argument before a panel of the CAFC
� Feb. 15, 2008 CAFC orders en banc rehearing and
requests answers to five(5) specific questions relating to 35
U.S.C. §101 (patent eligible subject matter)
� March 6, 2008 Supplemental briefs deadline
� April 5, 2008 Amicus Briefs deadline
� May 8, 2008 scheduled CAFC oral argument
![Page 4: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
![Page 5: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
35 U.S.C. § 101 BACKGROUND
5
![Page 6: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Foundations of §101
![Page 7: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Patent Act 1952
� 35 U.S.C. §101. Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and
useful
� process, �------ (focus of in re Bilski)
� machine,
� manufacture,
� or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a
patent therefore, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.
� Legislative Report: ��anything under the sun�7
![Page 8: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Anything under the sun ?
�����
![Page 9: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
�����
Not Quite
![Page 10: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
35 USC §101- What does it mean?
� The courts and the
USPTO Board of Patent
Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI)
have views on what this
section of the law
means.
10
![Page 11: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
COMPUTERS AND ALGORITHMS
11
![Page 12: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Computer and Algorithm Cases
� Gottschalk v. Benson (S. Ct. 1972) � no
patent, BCD to pure binary; patent claim can�t
wholly preempt an algorithm
� Parker v. Flook (1978) � updating an alarm
limit � applications claiming algorithm can only
claim a practical application of the algorithm
� Diamond v. Chakrabarty (S. Ct. 1980)
� Diamond v. Diehr (S. Ct. 1981) � claim must
be directed to practical and definite application
with a useful result (cure rubber)
12
![Page 13: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Computer and Algorithm Cases
� Arrhythmia (CAFC 1992) � Congress never
put limits on process of 101.
� In re Alappat (CAFC 1994) � rasterizer �
useful, concrete & tangible (UCT) result
� AT&T v. Excel (CAFC 1999) � claim directed
to a process requires no physical
transformation. Claimed algorithm tied to a
telephone system (physical tie in), UCT result
13
![Page 14: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Computer Case Principles
� In Benson, Flook, and Diehr, the Supreme
Court set forth basic principles that govern the
patentability of process claims. The principles
articulated in the Supreme Court�s trilogy,
although applied in those cases to computer-
related claims, actually long predate them and
have their roots in the foundations of the
patent system.
14
![Page 15: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Computer Case Principles
� Benson, Flook, and Diehr make clear that
these long-settled principles continue to apply
as technology changes and evolves.
� Supreme Court has required that the claimed
steps be defined in terms of physical effects or
operations, specifically, that the steps be tied
to the use of a specific apparatus or effect the
transformation or reduction of subject matter
to a different state or thing.
15
![Page 16: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Computer Case Principles
� This understanding of �process,� as used in
§ 101, as fundamentally physical in nature
places that category of patentable subject
matter on the same footing as the other
Section 101 categories -- machine,
manufacture, composition of matter -- all of
which are physical by definition.
16
![Page 17: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS
17
![Page 18: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
� Hub and spoke fund management
(1998)
� Court says: No business method
exception.
� 101 is �first door�.
� Flood gates opened.
18
![Page 19: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Business Methods � 10 years
19
�one click�
�name your price�
1988
![Page 20: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
� Recent years � backlash against
�business method patents� in
popular press.
20
![Page 21: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
USPTO GUIDELINES - 2005
21
![Page 22: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
2005 USPTO Interim Guidelines �
patent subject matter eligibility
� 1300 O.G. 142, posted Oct. 26, 2005, OG Notice Nov. 22,
2005
� Provided guidance to Examiners based on USPTO
interpretation of binding case law
� Judicial Exceptions:� 1) abstract idea
� 2) law of nature
� 3) Natural phenomenon
� Patent Eligible if
� Practical application, and
� Physical transformation, or Useful, concrete & tangible
(UCT) result
![Page 23: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
![Page 24: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
ENTER BILSKI
A LITTLE COMMODITIES
TRADING HISTORY
24
![Page 25: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Commodities Trading History
� First recorded instance of futures trading occurred with rice in
17th Century Japan, there is some evidence that there may
also have been rice futures traded in China as long as 6,000
years ago.
![Page 26: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
� Futures trading is a natural outgrowth of the problems of
maintaining a year-round supply of seasonal products like
agricultural crops. In Japan, merchants stored rice in
warehouses for future use. In order to raise cash, warehouse
holders sold receipts against the stored rice. These were
known as "rice tickets." Eventually, such rice tickets became
accepted as a kind of general commercial currency. Rules
came into being to standardize the trading in rice tickets.
These rules were similar to the current rules of American
futures trading.
![Page 27: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
� In the US, futures trading started in the
grain markets in the middle of the 19th
Century. The Chicago Board of Trade
was established in 1848
� In the 1870s and 1880s the New York
Coffee, Cotton and Produce Exchanges
started.
![Page 28: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Why futures trading ?
� Guarantee delivery of product� Speculate� Hedge risk
� weather� costs of other commodities
![Page 29: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Claim 1
�1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a
commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price
comprising the steps of:
�(a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said
consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon
historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk
position of said consumer;
(b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a
counter-risk position to said consumers; and
(c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such
that said series of market participant transactions balances the
risk position of said series of consumer transactions.
![Page 30: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Claim 1
�Claim directed to managing risk related to commodities.
�No �technology�recited in claim 1
30
![Page 31: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
CAFC - 5 Questions for en banc hearing
� 1. Whether claim 1 of the 08/833,892 patent application
claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
� 2. What standard should govern in determining whether a
process is patent-eligible subject matter under §101?
� 3. Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible
because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process;
when does a claim that contains both mental and physical
steps create patent-eligible subject matter?
![Page 32: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
CAFC - 5 Questions for en banc hearing
� 4. Whether a method or process must result in a physical
transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be
patent-eligible subject matter under §101?
� 5. Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank &
Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368
(Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications,
Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so,
whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?
![Page 33: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Business Methods Death Warrant?
� Potential to eliminate an
entire class of US
patents?
33
![Page 34: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
AIPLA Amicus Brief
� AIPLA�s supports Bilski and a broad interpretation of patentable subject matter.
� Improper to narrowly apply the subject matter categories of §101 by requiring process implementation by APPARATUS.
� §101 should only be limited by
� Laws of nature
� Physical phenomena
� Abstract ideas
![Page 35: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Other Amicus Briefs
![Page 36: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
![Page 37: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
![Page 38: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
� Those favoring a �narrow� §101 door argue that we issue too many and too broad claims that disrupt the marketplace
![Page 39: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
� Those favoring a �wide� §101 door point out that section 101 should be wide because it encourages innovation.
� Who knows where technology will go in the future?
![Page 40: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
� 35 U.S.C. §101 is a �threshold� question
� Bad claims that might pass through a wide §101 door will be eliminated by §112, §102 or §103.
![Page 41: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
In re Bilski (Fed. Cir 2007-1130)
� En banc argument May 8, 2008
� No decision yet
![Page 43: SKGF_Presentation_In Re Bilski_2008](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022060110/555edd9cd8b42ab6408b4cec/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Appendix � Other recent §101 cases
� In re Ferguson (BPAI July 27, 2006)
� In re Nuijten (Fed. Cir. Sep 20, 2007) (09/211,928)
� In re Comiskey, (Fed. Cir. Sep. 20, 2007) (09/461,742)
� Ex parte Tieu, 2007 WL 2823746, n.2 (PTO Bd. App. & Int.
Sep 27, 2007)
� Ex parte Gosby, 2007 WL 2843739 (PTO Bd. App. & Int. Sep
28, 2007)
� Ex parte Yang-Huffman, 2007 WL 2899992 (Bd.Pat.App. &
Interf. Oct 4, 2007)
� Dec. 5, 2007 Oral argument before CAFC In re Ferguson
(09/387,823)