First BPAI Decision Citing Bilski v. Kappos

The U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has released its first opinion citing the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bilski v. Kappos. With a Notification Date of today, July 12, 2010, the case is Ex Parte Proudler, Appeal 2009-006599, Serial No. 10/643,306, Tech. Center 2400, Decided July 7, 2010. The BPAI rejected all of the pending claims under section 101 as a new ground of rejection, citing Bilski v. Kappos.

The rejected independent claims were as follows:

1. A method of controlling processing of data in a computer apparatus, wherein the data comprises a plurality of usage rules for a plurality of data items stored by said computer apparatus, and comprising:
applying individualised usage rules to each of the data items based on a measurement of integrity of a computing entity to which the data items are to be made available, said data items being logically grouped together as a set of data items, and
instantiating the set of data items at the computing entity depending upon the integrity of the computing entity and the usage rule applicable to each data item in said set.

33. A method of controlling processing of data, wherein the data comprises a plurality of rules associated with a plurality of data items comprising a set of logically related data items, each data item in the set having a rule associated therewith, said rules acting to individually define usage and/or security to be observed when processing each of the data items in the set of data items, and in which forwarding of the set of data items is performed in accordance with mask means provided in association with the rules.

43. A computer program stored on computer readable media for instructing a programmable computer to implement a method of controlling the processing of data, wherein the data comprises a plurality of usage rules for a plurality of data items, the programmable computer being programmed to apply individualized usage rules to each of the data items based on a measurement of integrity of a computing entity to which the data items are to be made available, the computer program permitting instantiation of the data items at the computing entity only if the integrity of the computing entity complies with the individualised usage rules associated with said data items.

50. A computer apparatus for controlling processing of data, wherein the data comprises a plurality of usage rules for a plurality of data items stored by said computer apparatus, said computer apparatus controlling instantiation of the data at a computing entity, said computer apparatus including:
programming for applying individualised usage rules to each of the data items based on a measurement of integrity of the computing entity to which the data items are to be made available, said data items being logically grouped together as a set of data items, and
programming for individually instantiating data items in the set of data items at the computing entity as a function of the integrity of the computing entity and the usage rule applicable to each data item in said set.

Thanks to All Things Pros for noticing the publication of the decision. In addition, I am going to try to continue keeping a list of all decisions citing Bilski v. Kappos at http://www.AwakenIP.com/Bilski, so please let me know of any additional cases.

5 comments to First BPAI Decision Citing Bilski v. Kappos

  • I find this decision very discouraging. I expect HP (the applicant) to try and negotiate acceptable claim language with the examiner, but the fact remains that the US patent system does not appear to be able to adapt to or serve an information based economy.

  • JB

    @Mark

    Many of us would like the US patent system to simply get out of the information based economy for that very reason.

  • So far as I can tell, there is no actual invention in there. Assume for the moment that he is not just describing a file system. There is still nothing in there beyond abstract thought.

    Including “computing aparatus”, without instructions on how to build the same, does not reduce it from abstract to practice.

  • @JB

    I appreciate your position. Are copyright and trade secret enough protection?

  • TomG

    I agree with Andrews, it is a filing system with no actual structure to rely on. I read Bilski as requiring some actual structure beyond the “computer apparatus” and “programming to …” language. This was always the problem with the computer apparatus claims, there was no structure and it was so broad as to be useless. (Unless it was my client!)