patent eligibility after in re bilski

1. Patent Eligibility AfterIn re Bilski

2. OVERVIEW

4. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) converting binary-coded-decimal numbers into pure binary numbers would be a patent �on the algorithm itself� The clue: �Transformation and reduction of an article �to a different state or thing� is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.� Not really the clue: �It is argued that a process patent must be either tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a �different state or thing.� We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents.�

5. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) updating the value of an alarm limit associated with a process variable during a catalytic conversion process �Very simply, our holding today is that a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under � 101.� No clue talk, but: �As in Benson, we assume that a valid process patent may issue even if it does not meet [the machine-or-transformation test].�

6. Diamond v. Diehr, 437 U.S. 175 (1981) process of curing synthetic rubber The clue is repeated, but: �[W]hen a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of � 101.�