If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, then abstractness is an essential property of the claimed subject matter as a whole. As such, a claim directed to an abstract idea cannot be transformed to possess non-abstractness by whether or not it embodies an inventive concept, since whether the inventive concept is inventive or not depends upon when the concept was conceived, which is an accidental property rather than an essential property of the claimed subject matter… Mayo may make sense for natural laws and physical phenomena but given the very different nature of abstract ideas the test logically falls apart when one thinks they can turn something that is by its fundamental nature abstract into something that is not abstract.
The post Abstractness is not the malleable concept the Supreme Court thinks appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- Coke Stewart’s Recent Show Cause Order Offers Hope for Addressing Serial Patent Challenges
- The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now
- What Fintiv v. PayPal Means for Software and AI Patent Practice
- Despite Tweaks, PREVAIL 2025 Would Still Transform the PTAB
- Patent Eligibility Reform Returns to the Hill: PERA 2025 Explained