國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

A Proposal to Revise the Alice Test ...

Farsi, Mojdeh.

A Proposal to Revise the Alice Test for Software Patents.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A Proposal to Revise the Alice Test for Software Patents.
作者:	Farsi, Mojdeh.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020
面頁冊數:	86 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-04, Section: A.
附註:	Advisor: Merges, Robert P.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-04A.
標題:	Law.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=27998583
ISBN:	9798678172563

A Proposal to Revise the Alice Test for Software Patents.
Farsi, Mojdeh.

A Proposal to Revise the Alice Test for Software Patents. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 86 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-04, Section: A.

Thesis (J.D.)--University of California, Berkeley, 2020.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Most human innovations begin from an abstraction, a judicial exception that by itself is not patent-eligible. Abstract ideas are considered basic tools of scientific and technological work, which courts prefer not to award with a monopoly because exclusive ownership of these essential elements would only serve to hinder economic and innovative progress. The problem concerning patent eligibility under §101 is that we do not have any measurement or indicator to differentiate when a claim consists of only an abstract idea and when a claim does not. Currently, courts rely on precedent that is ambiguous rather than relying on more concrete measures based on the specific type of underlying software. Lacking this measurement, coupled with inherent software complexity, has resulted in inconsistent jurisprudence that is often inscrutable. These inconsistencies in the jurisprudence of cases involving computer programs stem from lacking a proper framework based on the functional nature of computer programs. There are several different proposals with inconsistent explanations as to how to apply the judicially created framework in determining patent eligibility. Still, none of them suggest a practical test specifically for software fields based on the functional nature of computer software to solve the patent eligibility problem. Additionally, proper disclosures are needed to combat high invalidity rates due to the lack of quality of patent applications.This study addressed the confusion regarding the existing judicial framework (Alice’s framework) in determining patent eligibility (§101) of software inventions. It proposed a new framework for determining patent eligibility in which the meaning of an abstract idea is defined in a practical way, as routine building blocks, based on the functional characteristics of software programs. These routine building blocks are not patent-eligible because the only embodiment is its fundamental components that are common in all inventions in that type of software. Granting any patent to claims of these essential elements will preempt other’s innovative progress in that specific type of software. The functionality of this framework was tested on some software patent cases dealing with the §101 issue, as well as on one actual AI (Artificial Intelligence) pending patent application. Additionally, this study suggested proper disclosures through examples to improve the quality of patent applications by specifying some factors that might affect the validity of a software patent regarding the sufficiency of its disclosure. Giving robust indicators to the patent examiners, judges, jurists, patentees, and practitioners to increase the certainty of predicting the outcome of the case based on the content quality of the underlying claims is the main contribution of this study. The result is significant because, with this legal paradigm, the unavoidably subjective assessments of computer programs in determining patent eligibility are formalized.Keywords: Intellectual Property, Software Patent, Abstract Idea, Alice Test, Patent Eligibility Test, Sufficient Disclosure, Artificial Intelligence, Building Blocks, Section 101, Section 112, U.S. Patent Act.

ISBN: 9798678172563Subjects--Topical Terms:

207600
Law.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Abstract idea

A Proposal to Revise the Alice Test for Software Patents.
LDR:04425nmm a2200385 4500 001 594582
005 20210521101700.5
008 210917s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798678172563
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI27998583
035 $a AAI27998583
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Farsi, Mojdeh. $3 886609
245 1 0 $a A Proposal to Revise the Alice Test for Software Patents.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 86 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-04, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Merges, Robert P.
502 $a Thesis (J.D.)--University of California, Berkeley, 2020.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Most human innovations begin from an abstraction, a judicial exception that by itself is not patent-eligible. Abstract ideas are considered basic tools of scientific and technological work, which courts prefer not to award with a monopoly because exclusive ownership of these essential elements would only serve to hinder economic and innovative progress. The problem concerning patent eligibility under §101 is that we do not have any measurement or indicator to differentiate when a claim consists of only an abstract idea and when a claim does not. Currently, courts rely on precedent that is ambiguous rather than relying on more concrete measures based on the specific type of underlying software. Lacking this measurement, coupled with inherent software complexity, has resulted in inconsistent jurisprudence that is often inscrutable. These inconsistencies in the jurisprudence of cases involving computer programs stem from lacking a proper framework based on the functional nature of computer programs. There are several different proposals with inconsistent explanations as to how to apply the judicially created framework in determining patent eligibility. Still, none of them suggest a practical test specifically for software fields based on the functional nature of computer software to solve the patent eligibility problem. Additionally, proper disclosures are needed to combat high invalidity rates due to the lack of quality of patent applications.This study addressed the confusion regarding the existing judicial framework (Alice’s framework) in determining patent eligibility (§101) of software inventions. It proposed a new framework for determining patent eligibility in which the meaning of an abstract idea is defined in a practical way, as routine building blocks, based on the functional characteristics of software programs. These routine building blocks are not patent-eligible because the only embodiment is its fundamental components that are common in all inventions in that type of software. Granting any patent to claims of these essential elements will preempt other’s innovative progress in that specific type of software. The functionality of this framework was tested on some software patent cases dealing with the §101 issue, as well as on one actual AI (Artificial Intelligence) pending patent application. Additionally, this study suggested proper disclosures through examples to improve the quality of patent applications by specifying some factors that might affect the validity of a software patent regarding the sufficiency of its disclosure. Giving robust indicators to the patent examiners, judges, jurists, patentees, and practitioners to increase the certainty of predicting the outcome of the case based on the content quality of the underlying claims is the main contribution of this study. The result is significant because, with this legal paradigm, the unavoidably subjective assessments of computer programs in determining patent eligibility are formalized.Keywords: Intellectual Property, Software Patent, Abstract Idea, Alice Test, Patent Eligibility Test, Sufficient Disclosure, Artificial Intelligence, Building Blocks, Section 101, Section 112, U.S. Patent Act.
590 $a School code: 0028.
650 4 $a Law. $3 207600
650 4 $a Intellectual property. $3 198094
650 4 $a Patent law. $3 766021
650 4 $a Software. $3 197534
650 4 $a Artificial intelligence. $3 194058
653 $a Abstract idea
653 $a Alice Test
653 $a Intellectual property
653 $a Section 101 U.S. Patent Act
653 $a Software patent
653 $a Sufficient disclosure
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0513
690 $a 0562
710 2 $a University of California, Berkeley. $b Law. $3 886610
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-04A.
790 $a 0028
791 $a J.D.
792 $a 2020
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=27998583