"Much has been said recently about "business method" patents. I've heard it said many times that business method patents are a "new" type of patent. The truth is that "business method patents" were never disallowed, and there's nothing new about business method patents.
What really happened is that there was once a theory that a patent claim could be rejected if it recited a method of doing business and the Federal Circuit (a court specifically created to hear and decide appeals involving patent cases) recently said that the theory was incorrect and no such grounds for rejection ever existed. This recent opinion did not change the law, only clarified it.
As for "business methods," I don't believe such a classification is meaningful in any way in patent law in the U.S. (with the possible exception of procedural matters within the Patent Office). All of the "business method" cases of which I'm aware merely mention "a method of doing business" in dicta (i.e., comments of the court with no legal effect) or as alternative grounds for rejection. In essence, courts have, from time to time, rejected one or more claims of a patent for being no more than a method of doing business and for not being new (lacking "novelty").
-taken from James Ivey, intelproplaw.com
Slashdot Mirror
"Much has been said recently about "business method" patents. I've heard it said many times that business method patents are a "new" type of patent. The truth is that "business method patents" were never disallowed, and there's nothing new about business method patents. What really happened is that there was once a theory that a patent claim could be rejected if it recited a method of doing business and the Federal Circuit (a court specifically created to hear and decide appeals involving patent cases) recently said that the theory was incorrect and no such grounds for rejection ever existed. This recent opinion did not change the law, only clarified it. As for "business methods," I don't believe such a classification is meaningful in any way in patent law in the U.S. (with the possible exception of procedural matters within the Patent Office). All of the "business method" cases of which I'm aware merely mention "a method of doing business" in dicta (i.e., comments of the court with no legal effect) or as alternative grounds for rejection. In essence, courts have, from time to time, rejected one or more claims of a patent for being no more than a method of doing business and for not being new (lacking "novelty"). -taken from James Ivey, intelproplaw.com