首页> 外文OA文献 >Physicality in the Information Age : a normative perspective on the patent eligibility of non-physical methods
【2h】

Physicality in the Information Age : a normative perspective on the patent eligibility of non-physical methods

机译:信息时代的物理性:非物理方法专利资格的规范性观点

摘要

There has been much conjecture of late as to whether the patentable subject matter standard contains a physicality requirement. The issue came to a head when the Federal Circuit introduced the machine-or-transformation test in In re Bilski and declared it to be the sole test for determining subject matter eligibility. Many commentators criticized the test, arguing that it is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the need for the patent system to respond appropriately to all new and useful innovation in whatever form it arises. Those criticisms were vindicated when, on appeal, the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos dispensed with any suggestion that the patentable subject matter test involves a physicality requirement. In this article, the issue is addressed from a normative perspective: it asks whether the patentable subject matter test should contain a physicality requirement. The conclusion reached is that it should not, because such a limitation is not an appropriate means of encouraging much of the valuable innovation we are likely to witness during the Information Age. It is contended that it is not only traditionally-recognized mechanical, chemical and industrial manufacturing processes that are patent eligible, but that patent eligibility extends to include non-machine implemented and non-physical methods that do not have any connection with a physical device and do not cause a physical transformation of matter. Concerns raised that there is a trend of overreaching commoditization or propertization, where the boundaries of patent law have been expanded too far, are unfounded since the strictures of novelty, nonobviousness and sufficiency of description will exclude undeserving subject matter from patentability. The argument made is that introducing a physicality requirement will have unintended adverse effects in various fields of technology, particularly those emerging technologies that are likely to have a profound social effect in the future.
机译:关于可授予专利的主题标准是否包含物理要求,最近有很多猜测。当联邦巡回法院在In re Bilski中引入机器或转换测试并宣布它是确定主题资格的唯一测试时,这个问题浮出水面。许多评论员批评该测试,认为它与最高法院的判例不一致,并且专利制度需要以任何形式出现的情况,对所有新的有用的创新做出适当的回应。在上诉时,最高法院在Bilski诉Kappos案中驳回了任何有关可专利性主题测试涉及身体要求的建议,这些批评得到了辩护。在本文中,从规范的角度解决了该问题:它询问可授予专利的主题测试是否应包含物理性要求。得出的结论是不应该这样做,因为这样的限制并不是鼓励我们在信息时代可能看到的许多有价值的创新的适当手段。有人认为,不仅传统上认可的机械,化学和工业制造工艺都符合专利条件,而且专利资格扩展到包括与物理设备和物理设备没有任何联系的非机器实施和非物理方法。不会引起物质的物理转化。有人担心,存在商品化或专有性过度发展的趋势,专利法的范围已被扩大得太多,这是没有根据的,因为新颖性,描述的不明显性和充分性的严格性将把不值得的主题排除在可专利性之外。提出的论点是,引入物理上的要求将对技术的各个领域产生意想不到的不利影响,特别是那些将来可能会产生深远社会影响的新兴技术。

著录项

  • 作者

    McEniery Benjamin J.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2011
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号