|Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 10:27 AM EDT|
|I see better what you mean. Your logical level corresponds to what is described|
in section A.4 when it discusses logical data types and the Curry-Howard
The mathematical algorithm exception to patent-eligible subject matter already
exists. The Supreme Court has established it in Benson, Flook and Diehr. They
have treated algorithms as laws of nature but the Federal Circuit prefers to
treat them as abstract ideas.
The "brightline" test is sturdier than you think. An what you cite of
it is incomplete.
> Claims reciting software will be patentable when they
> claim a referent which is a patent-eligible invention.
A referent is a physical object. This test requires that the physical object be
part of the invention and not merely referenced by the use of bits. When the
meaning of bits is not a physical object there is no referent. And when the
claim is just software running on the computer the referent is not part of the
invention. This is quite a constraint that is imposed.
The part you are missing is that the interpretants never distinguish over the
prior art. So all meanings which are not referent must be ignored when
determining whether the claim is new and nonobvious.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]