Gottschalk v. Benson
In the 1970s, the Supreme Court twice examined whether inventions containing computer software were patentable. Both times, the Supreme Court answered in the negative. In the 1972 case of Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court struggled with whether an algorithm to convert binary-coded decimal numbers into true binary numbers was considered patentable. The Court felt that a patent on this concept would pre-empt the entire mathematical algorithm. Since mathematics could be considered an abstract idea, and abstract ideas are not patentable, the Supreme Court held that the algorithm in question is not patentable.
1970年代，美國最高法院兩度審查包括電腦軟體的發明是否可被專利，兩次都被否定。1972年的Gottschalk v. Benson案例中，最高法院在利用演算法(Algorithm)轉換十進位位元碼為真實二元數字為可專利的議題上有過掙扎，法院認為以上概念為完全的數學演算法，因為僅是抽象概念，故無法專利。
小結，此階段，數學演算的抽象概念無法專利，主要是缺少產業利用性
Parker v. Flook
In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court examined whether a method for updating an alarm limit (used to signal abnormal conditions) in a catalytic conversion process was patentable. The only difference between the prior art and the invention was the algorithm that calculated the new alarm limit. The Court held that this was not patentable even though an additional step was included in the claim beyond merely the calculation step. The Court explicitly rejected the notion that "post-solution activity [alone]... can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process." Specifically, the court held that the invention could not be patented "not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one component, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention."
在Parker v. Flook判例中，爭議技術是針對一種判斷是否在催化轉換過程中更新警報範圍（在異常狀態下）的方法（翻譯有點拗口，請原諒），
最高法院進行審理時，認為此技術與先前技術僅差於更新警報範圍的演算方式，即使在權利範圍中，具有一些除了數學演算以外的步驟，但仍無法獲准專利。法院明確拒絕了利用所謂「post-solution activity」能將不可專利的東西轉換成可專利的程序，法院進一步說明，此技術「整體來說」不可專利並非是因為它包括了數學演算的元件，而是此演算法已經揭露於先前技術中，利用已經揭露的技術產生其他功效無法專利。
小結，此階段拒絕利用已經揭露於先前技術的「數學方法（軟體程式）」產生其他功能的專利性
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言