| 翻訳と辞書 |
| In re Ferguson ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
In re Ferguson
''In re Ferguson'' is an early 2009 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming a rejection of business method claims by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). One of the first post-''Bilski'' decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, ''Ferguson'' confirms the breadth of the en banc ''Bilski'' opinion’s rejection of the core holdings in ''State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.''〔149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).〕
''Ferguson'' was brought as a test case〔(NLJ ), ''Federal Circuit Bars Patent for Business 'Paradigm','' ("Harris said. 'I was trying to define a whole new set of claims -- a new style of claims.'"); ( Interview with Scott Harris ) ("I wanted to see if we could get the patent office to accept a wholly new form of claim adapted to the business method. I called this a paradigm....").〕 by patent attorney Scott Harris in what proved to be an unsuccessful effort to compel the PTO to accept as patent-eligible subject matter a “paradigm,” which is a pattern for a business organization. Harris was also one of the named inventors in the patent application. Harris also unsuccessfully sought to persuade the PTO and Federal Circuit to adopt as a test of patent-eligibility ---- “Does the claimed subject matter require that the product or process has more than a scintilla of interaction with the real world in a specific way?”
== Claims ==
The application presented two types of claims—method and so-called paradigm claims. Claim 1 was representative of the method claims:
A method of marketing a product, comprising:
::developing a shared marketing force, said shared marketing force including at least marketing channels, which enable marketing a number of related products;
::using said shared marketing force to market a plurality of different products that are made by a plurality of different autonomous producing company, so that different autonomous companies, having different ownerships, respectively produce said related products;
::obtaining a share of total profits from each of said plurality of different autonomous producing companies in return for said using; and
::obtaining an exclusive right to market each of said plurality of products in return for said using.
Claim 24 was representative of the so-called paradigm claims and read:
A paradigm for marketing software, comprising:
::a marketing company that markets software from a plurality of different independent and autonomous software companies, and carries out and pays for operations associated with marketing of software for all of said different independent and autonomous software companies, in return for a contingent share of a total income stream from marketing of the software from all of said software companies, while allowing all of said software companies to retain their autonomy.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「In re Ferguson」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|