IBM asserting its invulnerability to Bilski?
Back in March 2009, IPBiz noted that IBM, caught with its hand in the business method cookie jar, quickly retracted a business method application:
In the flap that followed IBM's patent application on outsourcing methods (20090083107), IBM spokesman Steve Malkiewicz said Monday, 30 March 09 the application would be withdrawn because it "is contrary to our patent policy on business methods."
Thus, while IBM is frequently associated with statements promoting patent reform, the practice of IBM has been to indulge in those things IBM publicly, for press purposes, complains about.
The blog "12:01 Tuesday" identified another issue with IBM. IPBiz elaborates.
Back on August 28, 2001, one Wayne Lewis Dickerson filed 09/940974, titled Method and system for generating a value proposition for a company in an industry with abstract
A method and system for generating a value proposition for a company in an industry is provided. Specifically, under the present invention, operational metrics and possible solutions are identified for the industry. Then, the impacts of the solutions on the operational metrics are assessed. Once the impacts have been assessed, a current operational performance of the company is compared to an operational performance of one or more companies within the industry to expose performance gaps. Then, a value proposition is generated by identifying a solution based the impacts to address the exposed performance gaps.
If one didn't know better, one might have guessed this ended up with a "patent troll." In fact, this was assigned to IBM.
Claims 23 and 26-33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Bilski was mentioned somewhere along the line. {These claims are not in the initial, as-published application [ 20030046137 ]}.
Following an appeal, the BPAI stated:
The Examiner applied the useful, concrete, and tangible result inquiry
to determine that claims 23 and 26-33 are non-statutory because they lack
concreteness. Ans. 4. However, the court in Bilski held that “the ‘useful,
concrete and tangible result’ inquiry is inadequate [to determine whether a
claim is patent-eligible under § 101.]” In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 959-60
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We find that claims 33 and 32 recite articles of manufacture, which
fall into one of the four categories of patent-eligible subject matter. FF 12-
13. Further, claim 31 recites an apparatus, which is also statutory subject
matter. FF 11.
(...)
Claims 23, 29, and 30 are drawn to processes (FF 1-10) which are
statutory if they meet the machine-or-transformation test. “A claimed
process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular
machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different
state or thing.” Id. at 954, citation omitted. We find that claims 23, 29, and
30 recite a computerized method which includes a step of outputting
information from a computer (FF 7 and 9-10) and therefore, are tied to a
particular machine or apparatus.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 23 and
26-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
Claim 23 is lengthy, and states:
23. A computerized method for identifying a
solution to address exposed performance gaps of a
company in a specific industry, comprising:
first identifying a plurality of operational
metrics for the specific industry, wherein the
operational metrics includes a factor used to
measure health or viability of a generic company
in the specific industry, wherein the specific
industry is a grocery store industry, wherein the
operational metrics include at least one of a rate of
inventory turnover and a number of customers per
day;
assembling a set of solutions for application
by the specific industry, wherein the set includes
one of a decision, an action, a product, and a
service;
assessing impacts of application of the set of
solutions on the operational metrics for the specific
industry, wherein the assessing includes
determining which of the set of solutions has a
negative impact on an operational metric and
determining which of the set of solutions has a
positive impact on the operational metric;
after identifying, assembling, and assessing,
then comparing a current operational performance
of the company to an operational performance of
another company within the specific industry to
obtain at least one performance gap, wherein the
operational performance includes a performance of
a company based upon the operational metric for
the specific industry;
identifying a solution based upon the
impacts to address the exposed performance gaps,
wherein the solution is at least one of a decision,
an action, a product, and a service that impacts a
problem in a positive manner; and
outputting the solution from the computer
system.
President Obama has indicated his intention to nominate
IBM's David Kappos as Undersecretary of Commerce, to be
the Director of the USPTO.
See also
IBM patent application on scheduling business meetings
Kappos, Lemley, Merritt, and the 271Blog
Kappos and IBM in May 2009
**In passing Gene Quinn – author of IP Watchdog – did not include either "12:01 Tuesday" or IPBiz
on the ballot for top IP Blogs. Although Patently-O wrote
His [Quinn's] rankings are based on website popularity and popular influence with three primary inputs: (1) voting by readers; (2) Technorati.com ratings (based on links to the site); and (3) Alexa.com ranking of website popularity.
voting was permitted only on the blogs that were placed on the ballot. "Not on ballot" meant "no votes."
In the flap that followed IBM's patent application on outsourcing methods (20090083107), IBM spokesman Steve Malkiewicz said Monday, 30 March 09 the application would be withdrawn because it "is contrary to our patent policy on business methods."
Thus, while IBM is frequently associated with statements promoting patent reform, the practice of IBM has been to indulge in those things IBM publicly, for press purposes, complains about.
The blog "12:01 Tuesday" identified another issue with IBM. IPBiz elaborates.
Back on August 28, 2001, one Wayne Lewis Dickerson filed 09/940974, titled Method and system for generating a value proposition for a company in an industry with abstract
A method and system for generating a value proposition for a company in an industry is provided. Specifically, under the present invention, operational metrics and possible solutions are identified for the industry. Then, the impacts of the solutions on the operational metrics are assessed. Once the impacts have been assessed, a current operational performance of the company is compared to an operational performance of one or more companies within the industry to expose performance gaps. Then, a value proposition is generated by identifying a solution based the impacts to address the exposed performance gaps.
If one didn't know better, one might have guessed this ended up with a "patent troll." In fact, this was assigned to IBM.
Claims 23 and 26-33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Bilski was mentioned somewhere along the line. {These claims are not in the initial, as-published application [ 20030046137 ]}.
Following an appeal, the BPAI stated:
The Examiner applied the useful, concrete, and tangible result inquiry
to determine that claims 23 and 26-33 are non-statutory because they lack
concreteness. Ans. 4. However, the court in Bilski held that “the ‘useful,
concrete and tangible result’ inquiry is inadequate [to determine whether a
claim is patent-eligible under § 101.]” In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 959-60
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We find that claims 33 and 32 recite articles of manufacture, which
fall into one of the four categories of patent-eligible subject matter. FF 12-
13. Further, claim 31 recites an apparatus, which is also statutory subject
matter. FF 11.
(...)
Claims 23, 29, and 30 are drawn to processes (FF 1-10) which are
statutory if they meet the machine-or-transformation test. “A claimed
process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular
machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different
state or thing.” Id. at 954, citation omitted. We find that claims 23, 29, and
30 recite a computerized method which includes a step of outputting
information from a computer (FF 7 and 9-10) and therefore, are tied to a
particular machine or apparatus.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 23 and
26-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
Claim 23 is lengthy, and states:
23. A computerized method for identifying a
solution to address exposed performance gaps of a
company in a specific industry, comprising:
first identifying a plurality of operational
metrics for the specific industry, wherein the
operational metrics includes a factor used to
measure health or viability of a generic company
in the specific industry, wherein the specific
industry is a grocery store industry, wherein the
operational metrics include at least one of a rate of
inventory turnover and a number of customers per
day;
assembling a set of solutions for application
by the specific industry, wherein the set includes
one of a decision, an action, a product, and a
service;
assessing impacts of application of the set of
solutions on the operational metrics for the specific
industry, wherein the assessing includes
determining which of the set of solutions has a
negative impact on an operational metric and
determining which of the set of solutions has a
positive impact on the operational metric;
after identifying, assembling, and assessing,
then comparing a current operational performance
of the company to an operational performance of
another company within the specific industry to
obtain at least one performance gap, wherein the
operational performance includes a performance of
a company based upon the operational metric for
the specific industry;
identifying a solution based upon the
impacts to address the exposed performance gaps,
wherein the solution is at least one of a decision,
an action, a product, and a service that impacts a
problem in a positive manner; and
outputting the solution from the computer
system.
President Obama has indicated his intention to nominate
IBM's David Kappos as Undersecretary of Commerce, to be
the Director of the USPTO.
See also
IBM patent application on scheduling business meetings
Kappos, Lemley, Merritt, and the 271Blog
Kappos and IBM in May 2009
**In passing Gene Quinn – author of IP Watchdog – did not include either "12:01 Tuesday" or IPBiz
on the ballot for top IP Blogs. Although Patently-O wrote
His [Quinn's] rankings are based on website popularity and popular influence with three primary inputs: (1) voting by readers; (2) Technorati.com ratings (based on links to the site); and (3) Alexa.com ranking of website popularity.
voting was permitted only on the blogs that were placed on the ballot. "Not on ballot" meant "no votes."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home