The 35 Section101 of US Patent Law has clearly defined the requirements for patent inventions eligible for patent law. It states, “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent, therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
Therefore, only the four types of patentable subject matter given above, processes, machines, manufacture and composition of matter fit the criteria for patent protection.
How Does The Machine And Process Claim Work On Digital Applications?
The rapid evolution of technology leading to software programmes has caused some confusion in the patent protection for machines and processes. It has become increasingly challenging to differentiate machine processes and their transformation or results.
According to the Courts, the patent invention should be able to prove that the machine tied to the invention is using a new method to give useful results or transforming the article into a different form. The machine and transformation patent process claim can be understood in more detail with the case discussed below.
In re Bilski, F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en banc)
During the examination of a non-provisional patent claim invention for hedging risks in commodities trading, the Court ruled that the invention does not meet the requirements for patent protection under the machine processes and transformation clause.
The method included taking information and numbers from different parties and using machines to mathematically calculate the risks and probabilities. Therefore, the use of machines to manipulate information into giving results by using legal liabilities and non-physical financial risks of a commodity provider does not meet the criteria of transformation. The Court further stated that tying a machine to a method does not make the patent claim eligible because the processor uses the information to provide results, thus using already available functional structures for delivery.
Summary
Even though patent inventions using machine processes to new methods to transform an article or produce useful results are patentable, the machine in question also has significance on the patent claim. In the Bilski Case, the patent method provided useful results for commodity providers but involved using different elements of a processor and an abstract idea to produce non-tangible results, thus not amounting to physical transformation.
