“Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high
level of generality,” to a method already “well known in the art” is not “enough” to supply the “ ‘inventive concept’ ” needed to make this transformation [into a patent-eligible invention].
How does this differ from/alter existing law? Is this ruling just a clarification?
In the federal court decision, there were dissents about how to decide that the patent was invalid, although everyone agreed it was invalid. The details are over my head.
Comments
“Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” to a method already “well known in the art” is not “enough” to supply the “ ‘inventive concept’ ” needed to make this transformation [into a patent-eligible invention].
How does this differ from/alter existing law? Is this ruling just a clarification?
In the federal court decision, there were dissents about how to decide that the patent was invalid, although everyone agreed it was invalid. The details are over my head.