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
- Patent Filings Roundup: Slow Week in PTAB and District Court, Ideahub Subsidiary Challenges Instituted; Patent Armory Continues the Offensive
- Timberland Loses Fourth Circuit Bid to Protect Trade Dress for Iconic Boots
- USPTO Proposes Making Director Review Process Official
- Evolving IP: The Innovation Crossroads
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 12: Bill to Rein in GAI Introduced; Amazon Owes Tech Rival $525 Million for Patent Infringement; USPTO Issues Guidance on the Use of AI for Filings