Judge Rich was attempting to articulate a test that would allow the decision maker to determine whether there is in fact an innovation; an invention that we recognize as one that can and should be patented if it is in fact novel and nonobvious. So, the key to the “useful, concrete and tangible result” test of State Street is the “concrete and tangible” part of the test. That part of the test must be referring to whether an invention has been articulated sufficiently so that if it is novel and nonobvious a patent could be appropriately awarded. This explanation of the State Street test would be in accord with both the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski, as well as in Alice v. CLS Bank, as well as the Federal Circuit’s precedential decisions in which the Court discusses the need for an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo Step 2B, and particularly the Ancora Technologies, Inc. decision.
The post Don’t Dismiss State Street: Ancora Decision Reiterates Relevance of Concrete and Tangible Test for Software appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- The SEP Couch: Lyse Brillouet on Managing SEPs and Open Standards
- Unveiling The Untapped Potential of Brazil’s Solar Energy Market
- AI Armor: Learn How to Harness AI to Invest in Your Company’s Future
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 19: European Court Rejects Pablo Escobar Trademark; Federal Agencies Launch Anti-Competitive Healthcare Practices Portal; and Reddit Cracks Down on Copyright Infringement
- Thoughts on the USPTO’s NPRM: Not Bad But the Big Challenges Remain