PTO Eliminates "Technological Arts" Requirement

MdntToker writes to tell us that the Patent Board has issued an opinion which removes the existing procedure of rejecting patents under 35 U.S.C. 101 as outside of the "technological arts". From the article: "Our determination is that there is currently no judicially recognized separate "technological arts" test to determine patent eligible subject matter under 101. We decline to create one. Therefore, it is apparent that the examiner's rejection can not be sustained."

Comments

How old are you?

[jurt1235]

Patents exist since at least 1594 (earliest patents I know of), probably earlier. Your patent would be pretty much expired by now.
Patents were invented to make people publish their inventions, protecting them for a short period of time, after that time everybody is free to use it. That probably worked in a slower paced world.

Re:Not Sure How Big this Really I

[mikael]

It's discussed in a bit more detail here. It looks like any business process can be patented, from plotting a basic graph on a whiteboard, to having TPS reports notched according to the future employment status of the employee.

This is total bullshit

[andreMA]

Article I, Section 8

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

USPTO has no authority outside the realm of "Science and useful Arts" and patents granted outside the scope of that allowed by the Constitution are illegal. Nor does it matter what Congress has to say about it; granting patents on things not meeting the prior test is not a power granted to the Federal Government.

They "declined" to create a definition. Translation: we "chose" to ignore the law. Perhaps I'll "decline" to pay my taxes and see how that flies. Arrogant bastards; they need to be put against the wall.

Re:This is total bullshit

[hagbard5235]

In a sane world, you would be correct. But welcome to the wonderful world of Wickard v Filburn, brought to use by FDR's packed Supreme Court, where enumerated powers are no longer enumerated, and you might as well ignore the 9th and 10th ammendment to the constitution. Essentially, Wickard says the government can do pretty much anything under the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. In a sane world, one might argue that the only authority for granting pattents at all comes from Article I, Section 8, clause 8, but in FDRs bizaro world were we all live today, you can just as easily derive the authority to grant patents without restriction from the commerce clause under Wickard.

Thank you FDR, nobody really needed liberty anyway!

Re:This is total bullshit

[Stealth Potato]

Interesting point; however, strictly speaking, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a prefatory declaration, and does not explicitly place any restriction on the text that follows. This is similar to the case of the Second Amendment to the Constitution - the prefatory clause does not restrict the operative clause.

Re:"We decline to create one."

[arkanes]

The legislature has delegated the job of deciding what the requirements for patents are to the PTO. Thats why the patent office gets to decide if business patents are okay or not, or whether you need to actually implement something before you can patent it, or whether or not you can implement living things.

Re:Think patenting of plot twists in movies

[NigelJohnstone]

" I won't steal your thunder " Before you were stealing my intellectual property, now you're stealing my thunder? Thats *my* thunder you're taking their buddy. :)

More seriously:
"bezier curves for issues of clarity, simplicity of implementation, ink conservation"
Thats damn close to the drawing a graph example the judges based their thinking on. Steal away.

Only tangentially related to this, have you seen this patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netah tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6767433.WKU.&OS=PN/6767433&RS=PN/ 6767433

For a solar still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still

This company received a patent on the solar still in 2004:
http://www.solaqua.com/solstilbas.html

I think USA has almost no prior art test at all, and no non-obvious test, this is a train wreck just waiting to be patented.

Re:For the benefit of those of us outside the USA

[pyrrhonist]

How often are the 'Patents Board' democratically elected

Th Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is established under 35 U.S.C.

The Administrative Patent Judges (who issued the opinion in the article) are appointed by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (i.e. "The Director"). The Administrative Patent Judges are regular employees of the patent office, and serve until they quit, retire, are removed, etc.

The Director is appointed by the President.

and for how long have they had the power to change the laws of the USA?

They don't have the power to change the law. They have the power to interpret patent law, "on written appeal of an applicant". Note that the applicant can then take this issue to federal court after it is reviewed.

In this case, the patent examiner rejected the patent claims of the applicant by arguing that they were outside the "technical arts". The patent applicant filed an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The case was reviewed by the Board and a majority (3 of 5) found that there is no test under the law for determining what "technological arts" covers. The minority argued that the meaning of "technological arts" is equivalent to the "useful arts" phrase in the US Constitution.

The result of this is that a precedent has been set which determines that, "outside the technical arts", is not a justifiable reason under the law for rejecting patent claims.