抽象概念的商業方法不予專利外，也可能因為導致獨占性而不允專利
美國專利上訴與衝突委員會（BPAI）於2/7/2012作出一個訴願決定（Ex Parte Edelson, App. No. 2011-004285 (BPAI 2012)），關於專利申請案11/101,436所揭露的建立根據金融衍生工具的經常性收益貨幣型資產的系統與方法（System and method for creating recurrent yield monetary asset based financial instrument derivatives），所涉及的方法包括先取得特定目標的經常性貨幣型資產（特許權使用費，工資，版稅收入流，出版特許權使用費，版權使用費，商標使用費，專利使用費，石油收入的特許權使用費，電影和音像出版特許權使用費），在一些財務機關寄存後計算出相關衍生性商品的股份數，並釋放出來，經投資回收利息，繼續寄存這些利息，藉重複這些步驟獲利！
其中系統特別運作於電信網路上，應用的技術包括利用語音、數據資料的網路協定傳播衍生商品的資訊，並藉此交易各種金融貨幣，這個教人賺錢的方法專利範圍為電腦實現的「寄存機關」系統，用以轉換金融貨幣資產、寄存、計算股份、資料庫等工作，範圍主要以手段功能用語撰寫：
系統範圍：
1. A computer-implemented system for creating financial instrument derivatives based on recurrent yield monetary assets selected from the group consisting of royalties, salaries, royalty-type streams of revenues, publishing royalties, copyright royalties, trademark royalties, patent royalties, oil-revenue royalties, movie and video publishing royalties, said recurrent yield monetary assets having an asset value from a recurrent yield monetary asset resource, comprising:
a rollup entity, said rollup entity comprising:
means for transferring from said recurrent yield monetary asset resource said at least one of said recurrent yield monetary assets;
means for depositing at least one of said recurrent yield monetary assets into a rollup entity earnings account;
means for calculating, responsive to depositing of said at least one recurrent yield monetary asset, at least one of the group consisting of a cash value and a number of shares of said financial instrument derivatives based on said asset value;
means for issuing said calculated number of shares of said financial derivative instruments to said at least one recurrent yield monetary asset resource;
database means located
for storing information and data representative of said at least one recurrent yield monetary asset and said financial derivative instruments; and
means for communicating between said recurrent yield monetary asset resources and said rollup entity
for transmitting said information and said data related to said at least one recurrent yield monetary asset.
另有爭議的方法範圍為"computer-implemented method"，其中步驟有聯絡資產來源與寄存機關兩端、轉換資產、寄存、計算與釋放等步驟，如下：
11. A computer-implemented method for creating recurrent yield monetary asset based financial instrument derivatives by a rollup entity in communication with at least one recurrent yield monetary asset resource, said recurrent yield monetary asset having an asset value, said method comprising:
communicating between said rollup entity and said at least one recurrent yield monetary asset resource regarding acquiring an at least one recurrent yield monetary asset selected from the group consisting of royalties, salaries, royalty-type streams of revenues, publishing royalties, copyright royalties, trademark royalties, patent royalties, oil-revenue royalties, movie and video publishing royalties, said recurrent yield monetary assets;
transferring from said at least one recurrent yield monetary asset resource to said rollup entity said recurrent yield monetary asset;
depositing said one recurrent yield monetary asset into a rollup entity earnings account;
calculating at least one of the group consisting of a cash value and a number of shares of said financial instrument derivatives based on said asset value; and
issuing from said rollup entity to said at least one recurrent yield monetary asset resource said calculated number of shares of said financial derivative instrument.
但BPAI委員認為，雖此案前案以"computer-implemented"方法來表示，
但是範圍並未有任何物理性的轉換（physical transformation），其中元件也並非連結特定硬體，即便權利範圍中可能包括一些如資料庫等的硬體，但這些並非能使得整個範圍具有專利性，認定範圍為一處理抽象資產的抽象概念，認為Claims 11-13 and 15-20如審查階段的決定，不符專利法第101條規定（as 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter）。
在此BPAI判決中引用最高法院（supreme court）的見解，若權利範圍涉及一些活動的基本概念（basic concept of an ativity），
如此案套利交易的方法，會讓專利權人取得在所有領域的此方法使用權利，這可能導致這個抽象概念的托辣斯（獨占，monopoly），一如Bilski v. Kappos的那件判例（可參考：
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-re-bernard-l-bilski-and-rand-warsaw.html、
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2010/07/bilski.html）。
[此段原文]
that claims that explained the basic concept of an activity (hedging) would allow the Appellant to pre-empt the use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3231 (June 2010). Abstract ideas are not patent eligible. Id. at 3225.
Ron
資料來源：BAPI final decision, Patently-O
