認真做專利 希望所有的專利工程師 都能認真做專利

21愛的鼓勵 0訂閱站台

引用別人的意見

“If the process passes the machine-or-transformation test, it will almost certainly be patent-eligible. If it fails that test, it will have to be scrutinised very carefully, to see if it is an abstract idea,” said Sarnoff.

But, he adds, the Bilski decision “gave no clear idea” where to draw the line between a patent-eligible invention and an abstract idea. “That will have to be litigated case by case,” Sarnoff said.

總歸來說

為求保險

就把方法項寫得合於machine-or-transformation test

否則就要去煩惱

如果被以abstract idea核駁時

要如何答覆你的方法項並不抽象

question:

步驟裡沒有particular machine或是transformation的時候

如何說明抽象(abstract)和不抽象的區別?

 

USPTO的手腳很快

101的guideline已經出來了

正如我所預料的

machine or transformaton test並沒有被捨棄

審查的規定如下:

If a claimed method meets the machine-or-transformation test, the method is likely patent-eligible under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is directed to an abstract idea.

If a claimed method does not meet the machine-or-transformation test, the examiner should reject the claim under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea.

If a claim is rejected under section 101 on the basis that it is drawn to an abstract idea, the applicant then has the opportunity to explain why the claimed method is not drawn to an abstract idea.

也就是說

machine-or-transformation test沒過的

申請者就要說明為何此方法項不是抽象的概念

所以

還是乖乖的把方法項寫成合乎machine-or-transformation test的形式吧

 

問題:

最高法院沒說

USPTO也沒說

abstract idea的判斷標準是什麼呢?