|
In United States patent law, the machine-or-transformation test is a test of patent eligibility under which a claim to a process qualifies for consideration if it (1) is implemented by a particular machine in a non-conventional and non-trivial manner or (2) transforms an article from one state to another.〔Stefania Fusco, ( "Is In re Bilski a Deja Vu?" ), ''2009 Stan. Tech. L. Rev.'' P1 〕 The test was first articulated under its present form in the government's brief in ''Gottschalk v. Benson'',〔409 U.S. 63 (1972).〕 In its reply brief on the merits in that case, the government said that “we submit that the cases follow such a rule––implicitly or explicitly––and that they cannot be rationalized otherwise.”.〔Reply Br. at 9.〕 The court declined to adopt the proposed rule as categorical and as an exclusive test. It opined that future cases might present fact patterns calling for a different rule from that applicable to past cases, and therefore the machine-or-transformation test was just a "clue" to eligibility for a patent.〔The court said that "() process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a 'different state or thing.' We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our . . . precedents."〕 The test has been recently articulated in ''Bilski'',〔545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also ''In re Ferguson'', 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009).〕 but dates back to the nineteenth century.〔The ''Benson'' opinion explains several examples. In ''Corning v. Burden'', 56 U.S. (15 How.) 252 252 (1853), the court stated that “()ne may discover a new and useful improvement in the process of tanning, dyeing, etc., irrespective of any particular form of machinery or mechanical device.” ''Id''. at 267-68. The ''Benson'' court explained that the illustrative processes in ''Corning'' — “the arts of tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores”—are instances where “the use of chemical substances or physical acts, such as temperature control, changes articles or materials. The chemical process or the physical acts which transform the raw material are, however, sufficiently definite to confine the patent monopoly within rather definite bounds.” ''Benson'', 409 U.S. at 69. In ''Cochrane v. Deener,'' 94 U. S. 780 (1876), the court upheld a patent on a process for manufacturing “superfine” flour, although the claim was not limited to any particular form of machinery. Such a process “is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.” ''Id''. at 788. The ''Benson'' court also explained ''Tilghman v. Proctor'', 102 U. S. 707 (1880), as a case in which the process transformed fat into glycerin by uniting a water molecule with a fat molecule. ''Benson'', 409 U.S. at 70.〕 The test is articulated also in the patent-eligibility trilogy—''Gottschalk v. Benson'',〔409 U.S. 63 (1972).〕 ''Parker v. Flook'',〔437 U.S. 584 (1978).〕 and ''Diamond v. Diehr''.〔450 U.S. 175 (1981).〕 In the wake of the Supreme Court's opinion in ''Bilski v. Kappos'', rejecting machine-or-transformation as the sole test of patent eligibility, and confirming that it is only a "useful clue," it is now clear that this test is only a way to measure whether the patent claim in issue preempts substantially all applications of the underlying idea or principle on which a patent is based—such preemption being a far more basic and general test of patent eligibility or ineligibility.〔See ''Alice Corp. v. CLS Int'l Bank'', 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 (2014) ("A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the () is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the (idea ).' ").〕 ==Supreme Court has held that this is not the only test== The Supreme Court has held〔() Supreme Court Opinion〕 that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for the patent-eligibility of processes. The certiorari petition in ''Bilski'' challenged that proposition.〔See (Bilski ) petition at 16-21,〕 and the Supreme Court's ''Bilski'' opinion expressly rejected the Federal Circuit's declaration that it was the exclusive test to apply; despite a dissent on the proper rationale, the court was unanimous on this point. In ''Gottschalk v. Benson'', the court expressly reserved the point and declined to adopt the test as exclusive, stating:
The government had made an argument in its brief in ''Benson'' that the Court should so hold and that it was impossible to rationalize the case law any other way. The Court, in its ruling, refused or failed to agree with that argument.〔See Petitioner’s Reply Brief on writ of certiorari in ''Benson'', at 9 (“we submit that the cases follow such a rule –– implicitly or explicitly –– and that they cannot be rationalized otherwise”).〕 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「Machine-or-transformation test」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|