I don't think that whether this applies to a discrete
problem is the issue
with this patent. Yes, this is
implemented in software (since the claim does
not describe a
new invention/machine, but rather a set of algorithms for
processing a set of numbers (input from the screen)).
In *this* example,
it's not patentable because there it
fails the transformation test. We don't
have any
identifiable new invention that is a machine or transforms
anything.
There is hardware that transforms things (changes
bits from zero to one,
polarizes lcd pixels, turns pressure
on a touchscreen into a digital signal,
etc), but the
software just provides rules for altering the numbers
represented by those digital signals.
The machine-or-transformation test
is a pretty tough one
to leap over if you're talking about a software patent,
and
unless there's a new machine (physical thing), it's not a
hardware
patent. --- 'Murphy was an optimist'
-O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|