Filewrapper®

Federal Circuit Addresses Patentability in Terms of Non-Statutory Subject Matter

July 13, 2018
Post by Blog Staff

On June 20, 2018, in In re Wang, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that patent application claims describing a phonetic symbol system were not patentable because it was directed to non-statutory subject matter. Patentable subject matter is laid out in 35 U.S.C. § 101, which states that patentable inventions must be a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”.

The phonetic symbol system consists of using a single letter or a combination of letters of the English alphabet to represent phonetic symbols. Each vowel and consonant in the English alphabet is then represented by a distinct phonetic symbol.

In its reasoning, the CAFC highlights the fact that an invention is only patentable if it is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The CAFC points out that to be a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, it must exist in a physical or tangible form. The CAFC says that a machine is a “concrete thing,” a manufacture is a “tangible article,” and a composition of matter is a “combination of two or more substances”. Since the phonetic symbol system described in the claims is none of those things, the CAFC then considered whether it represented a process.

A “process” in terms of patentability is defined in 35 U.S.C. § 100(b), which states that a process is any “process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material”. The CAFC then cites relevant case law that describes a process as a series of acts or steps and as something that must be performed. The CAFC determines that none of the claims describing the phonetic symbol system require an act, or step, or anything that would need to be performed. Therefore, the invention is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and is not patentable. The CAFC also points out that the claims contain no additional inventive concept that may make the claims patentable.

At a time when patent eligibility is topic of discussion, it is important for the courts to continue to decide cases on the matter to provide clarity.


Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Enter your name and email address to receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Vorhees & Sease, P.L.C.