Lots of good examples today. Too many, actually. I'll leave the numerous auction patents aside and focus on two consecutively numbered, somewhat similar inventions, one of which is significantly more Bilski-proof than the other, in my opinion. Makes for a nice teaching moment...
Key terms are in bold.
U.S. Patent No. 7,499,889 Transaction system
Assignee: Cyota Inc. 1. A method of registering a card holder to a service during an online card transaction, said method comprising: after commencement of an online transaction by a card holder, receiving from a merchant web site a query as to whether the card holder is registered with an authentication service provider, wherein being registered with said authentication service provider requires authentication prior to proceeding with the online transaction; determining whether the card holder is registered with said authentication service provider; and if said card holder is not registered, sending a positive response to the merchant web site, thereby indicating that said card holder is registered with said authenticating service provider, and commencing registration of said card holder with said authentication service provider. |
Commentary: Allowed in June 2008, pre-Bilski. The lack of machine here leaves lots of questions. What performs that "determining" step? What sends the positive response? Is a mere "merchant web site" enough of a machine for the MoT test? Does "commencing registration" require a computer? I think we know the answers to these questions, and the Examiner would have answered them if he had come across it a few months later...
Here's #2, for contrast:
U.S. Patent No. 7,499,888 Transaction authentication system and method
Assignee: FusionOne, Inc. 1. A method for transaction verification, comprising: (a) receiving a request at a central server system, from a payment institution separate from the central server system, for verification of a cardholder electronic transaction, the payment institution receiving a request from a merchant separate from the payment institution; (b) automatically initiating contact by a first internet capable device associated with said cardholder with the central server system; (c) determining, by said central server system based on said contact, if said cardholder electronic transaction is authorized by said cardholder; and (d) communicating authentication information, by said central server system, to said payment institution. |
Commentary: Filed in 2001, Notice of Allowance was post-Bilski. Note how the applicant identifies a few clear "particular machines". As we've seen with several successful examples at the BPAI, if you can say you have a specific-sounding type of "server", that may go a long way under Bilski, especially if your spec backs it up by defining that server in non-generic ways.
For another good example of this technique, see today's issuance to Visa: U.S. Patent no. 7,499,886, "Conducting commerce between individuals with integrated shipping", which uses a "transaction server" in a similar fashion to make clear that machine is tied to the process.
101 was never raised in any of these patents, however.
And the ugly patent of the day is:
U.S. Patent No. 7,499,870 System and method for developing sales content
Assignee: Sales Research Institute Inc. 1. A computer implemented method of developing sales information for use in a buyer-seller environment, the method comprising: providing one
or more qualifiers which relate
to a sales offering; determining value criteria, for each qualifier, to
identify potential value of the sales offering including determining,
for at least one of the qualifiers, an open-ended query statement which
is used by the seller in an information
gathering procedure, where the open-ended query enables the seller to
determine a potential problem for the buyer, the information gathering
procedure enabling the seller to determine information relevant to
solving the problem for the buyer; determining ideal buying criteria
based on a competitive analysis; and using a computer for developing the sales information from the value criteria and the buying criteria. |
Commentary:
As if this claim isn't ugly enough in the eyes of the new 101, it gets
even worse when you look at the proseuction history. After stewing for
five years with lots of other business method applications, the
examiner gave a restriction requirement in June 2008, which the
applicant traversed via a preliminary amendment in July. Apparently
there was a telephone conference in September that resulted in an
Examiner's Amendment adding the italicized language above. Of course,
the Examiner's search and Notice of Allowance actually came in
November, i.e., post-Bilski, but I guess nobody thought
to apply the machine or transformation test at that point. Instead, this straddler
now is essentially a first action allowance. And let's not even start
with the 112 issues on "developing sales information". Wow.
Recent Comments