{"id":4335,"date":"2011-08-12T23:47:42","date_gmt":"2011-08-13T05:47:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=4335"},"modified":"2011-08-13T00:28:01","modified_gmt":"2011-08-13T06:28:01","slug":"patent-eligibility-of-computer-readable-medium-claims-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=4335","title":{"rendered":"Patent Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The patent eligibility of some\u00a0Beauregard claims (i.e., computer readable medium claims) came up in the recent oral argument of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Cybersource v. Retail Decisions<\/span>.\u00a0 A decision\u00a0from the Federal Circuit panel (Judges Bryson, Dyk, and Prost)\u00a0is expected shortly.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The panel inquired whether\u00a0a claim to a computer readable medium should be patent\u00a0ineligible if the method that the computer readable medium can cause to be\u00a0performed is itself\u00a0an ineligible\u00a0abstract idea.\u00a0 It is hard to imagine the tortured logic that would be required for a court\u00a0to hold that\u00a0a patent\u00a0claim that claims\u00a0an article of manufacture (i.e., a <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">physical<\/span> object)\u00a0is\u00a0a claim to\u00a0an abstract idea; nevertheless, we&#8217;ll have to wait and see if the court addresses the issue when it issues its\u00a0opinion in the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the discussion of the patent eligibility of Beauregard claims\u00a0during the oral argument [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/2009-1358-excerpt-1.mp3\">here<\/a>] and [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/2009-1358-excerpt-2.mp3\">here<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the entire oral argument here: \u00a0[<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2009-1358.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The patent eligibility of some\u00a0Beauregard claims (i.e., computer readable medium claims) came up in the recent oral argument of Cybersource v. Retail Decisions.\u00a0 A decision\u00a0from the Federal Circuit panel (Judges Bryson, Dyk, and Prost)\u00a0is expected shortly.\u00a0 The panel inquired whether\u00a0a claim to a computer readable medium should be patent\u00a0ineligible if the method that the computer [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4335"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4335"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4335\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4343,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4335\/revisions\/4343"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}