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.
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Pardon Me? Levandowski Case Highlights Need for Proactive Approach to Avoid Trade Secret Problems in Hiring
- The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool
Recent Posts
- Pardon Me? Levandowski Case Highlights Need for Proactive Approach to Avoid Trade Secret Problems in Hiring
- The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool