History of Software Patents III

1990s
1990年代早期，CAFC試著要闡明軟體在何種情況下具有可專利性。
CAFC描述，整個發明案應由整體（as a whole）技術來審查，判斷是否該發明案只是一個數學演算法，比如，是否如電腦程式將十進位碼轉為二位元碼而已？如果是，該發明並無專利性，但如果經電腦處理後，產生具體的真實世界的值，如將心電圖訊號解譯去預測心律不整的程式、利用電腦程式將信號轉為預測地震的數據，則此類發明應具有可專利性。

In re Lowry (有關記憶體中的資料結構)

1994年，Lowry案原本被USPTO認為No.07/181,105（儲存資料的記憶體）為非法定標的（non-statutory）而核駁，但BPAI（專利上訴與衝突委員會）則判斷為法定標的，但是卻以資料結構為「printed matter exception」(列印物品為例外)作為核駁理由，但此時是以102/103作為判斷依據，但CAFC則提出不同決定，認為「printed matter exception」僅應用於人類可理解的列印的線或是字母，原因是資料結構並非事由人的心智去處理的，而是由機器。結果，此包括有資料結構的記憶體則被認為是可專利的標的，而能接受新穎性與進步性的判斷。

Lowry案（專利號5,664,177）權利要求1如下：

1. A memory for storing data for access by an application program being executed on a data processing system, comprising:
a data structure stored in said memory, said data structure including information resident in a database used by said application program and including:
a plurality of attribute data objects stored in said memory, each of said attribute data objects containing different information from said database;
a single holder attribute data object for each of said attribute data objects, each of said holder attribute data objects being one of said plurality of attribute data objects, a being-held relationship existing between each attribute data object and its holder attribute data object, and each of said attribute data objects having a being-held relationship with only a single other attribute data object, thereby establishing a hierarchy of said plurality of attribute data objects;
a referent attribute data object for at least one of said attribute data objects, said referent attribute data object being nonhierarchically related to a holder attribute data object for the same at least one of said attribute data objects and also being one of said plurality of attribute data objects, attribute data objects for which there exist only holder attribute data objects being called element data objects, and attribute data objects for which there also exist referent attribute data objects being called relation data objects; and
an apex data object stored in said memory and having no being-held relationship with any of said attribute data objects, however, at least one of said attribute data objects having a being-held relationship with said apex data object.

State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group

1998年，CAFC做出State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group判決，進一步確認電腦軟體的可專利性，US5,193,056揭露一種用於共同基金的hub and spoke方法（原用於網路技術），其中應用軟體執行判斷基金資產的比例等訊息，銀行宣稱這是不可專利的數學演算法，或是一個商業方法，但是CAFC認為，商業方法可為專利標的，說明軟體或方法產生有用、具體的結果應可被專利。

Signature Financial案（US5,193,056）權利要求1內容：

1. A data processing system for managing a financial services configuration of a portfolio established as a partnership, each partner being one of a plurality of funds, comprising:
(a) computer processor means for processing data;
(b) storage means for storing data on a storage medium;
(c) first means for initializing the storage medium;
(d) second means for processing data regarding assets in the portfolio and each of the funds from a previous day and data regarding increases or decreases in each of the funds, assets and for allocating the percentage share that each fund holds in the portfolio;
(e) third means for processing data regarding daily incremental income, expenses, and net realized gain or loss for the portfolio and for allocating such data among each fund;
(f) fourth means for processing data regarding daily net unrealized gain or loss for the portfolio and for allocating such data among each fund; and
(g) fifth means for processing data regarding aggregate year-end income, expenses, and capital gain or loss for the portfolio and each of the funds.

小結：此時，軟體專利是可專利的標的，因其達成有用且具體的效果，並且因為軟體是由電腦處理器、可讀取的記憶媒體達成，能符合審查基準的要求

Ron
資料來源：Bitlaw
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/history-of-software-patents-i.html
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/history-of-software-patents-ii.html