Alice in Blunderland: The Supreme Court’s Conflation of Abstractness and Obviousness
14 12 2014The problem with this analytical approach lies not in the two-step Mayo “algorithm,” but rather in framing the analysis in terms of subject matter eligibility under Section 101 rather than patentability under 103. Section 101 is intended to deal with the eligibility of the claimed subject matter for patent protection as a class (i.e., genus or sub-genus) of inventions, rather than the contribution of the particular invention (i.e., species) defined by the claim vis-a-vis the prior art. So why did the Supreme Court frame the inquiry in terms of patent-eligible subject matter, rather than proceeding directly to the question of obviousness?
The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/12/11/alice-in-blunderland-the-supreme-courts-conflation-of-abstractness-and-obviousness/id=52563/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
