Machine Transformation Test

[Peter Olcott]

Would a claim based on the use of a deterministic finite
automaton (which is a term of the art otherwise known as a
finite state machine) be construed as tied to a particular
machine in the case where this deterministic finite
automaton (AKA finite state machine) was specially developed
for the purpose of this specific use?

[Peter Olcott]

Post by Peter Olcott
Would a claim based on the use of a deterministic finite
automaton (which is a term of the art otherwise known as a
finite state machine) be construed as tied to a particular
machine in the case where this deterministic finite
automaton (AKA finite state machine) was specially
developed for the purpose of this specific use?

It seems that this link is saying that the "Machine
Transformation Test" was struck down, based on a recent
supreme court ruling.
http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/?p=9830
Is that what it means?

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:10:41 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote...

Post by Peter Olcott
It seems that this link is saying that the "Machine
Transformation Test" was struck down, based on a recent
supreme court ruling.
http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/?p=9830
Is that what it means?

The Supreme Court said that the "machine or transformation" test is not
the *exclusive* test for patent-eligible subject matter. It can still
be used but so can other tests too.

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/bilski_guidance.jsp

[Peter Olcott]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:10:41 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote...

Post by Peter Olcott
It seems that this link is saying that the "Machine
Transformation Test" was struck down, based on a recent
supreme court ruling.
http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/?p=9830
Is that what it means?

The Supreme Court said that the "machine or
transformation" test is not
the *exclusive* test for patent-eligible subject matter.
It can still
be used but so can other tests too.
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/bilski_guidance.jsp
--
Tim Jackson
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

My patent examiner told me that I have to pass the Machine
Transformation Test, just before the supreme court ruling,
What should I do?

Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

[Ben Pfaff]

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

A finite state machine is not a machine. It's a mathematical
abstraction.

[Peter Olcott]

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular
machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

A finite state machine is not a machine. It's a
mathematical
abstraction.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org

It is an actual machine within the foundation computer
science, (related to the Turing Machine) thus the difference
of it being etched on to silicon or stored in a general
purpose computer's memory should be moot.

[Ben Pfaff]

Post by Peter Olcott

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular
machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

A finite state machine is not a machine. It's a mathematical
abstraction.

It is an actual machine within the foundation computer
science, (related to the Turing Machine) thus the difference
of it being etched on to silicon or stored in a general
purpose computer's memory should be moot.

A "finite state machine" (FSM) or a "deterministic finite
automaton" (DFA) is a very abstract concept. Textbooks describe
their behavior in terms of mathematical sets, tuples, mappings,
etc. There's nothing "specific" about them.

It sounds like, in fact, you want to talk about some specific
implementation of an FSM or DFA. That's the difference between a
textbook that describes a DFA and the source code for the "grep"
program that implements a form of DFA to for regular expression
search.

[Peter Olcott]

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Peter Olcott

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular
machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

A finite state machine is not a machine. It's a
mathematical
abstraction.

It is an actual machine within the foundation computer
science, (related to the Turing Machine) thus the
difference
of it being etched on to silicon or stored in a general
purpose computer's memory should be moot.

A "finite state machine" (FSM) or a "deterministic finite
automaton" (DFA) is a very abstract concept. Textbooks
describe
their behavior in terms of mathematical sets, tuples,
mappings,
etc. There's nothing "specific" about them.
It sounds like, in fact, you want to talk about some
specific
implementation of an FSM or DFA. That's the difference
between a
textbook that describes a DFA and the source code for the
"grep"
program that implements a form of DFA to for regular
expression
search.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org

Yes. My finite state machine converts display screen pixels
into recognized characters, and unlike every alternative
technology it does it with 100% accuracy.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:05:30 -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote...

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

A finite state machine is not a machine. It's a mathematical
abstraction.

The OP also said that it was specially developed for the purpose of a
specific use. So I think it will depend also on whether that use is an
abstraction, and on how it is claimed.

This stuff is difficult to determine, and he really needs to get some
proper professional advice.

[Ben Pfaff]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:05:30 -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote...

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

A finite state machine is not a machine. It's a mathematical
abstraction.

The OP also said that it was specially developed for the purpose of a
specific use. So I think it will depend also on whether that use is an
abstraction, and on how it is claimed.

That's an implementation or an instantiation of the abstract
concept of an FSM then. Very different.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:09:11 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote...

Post by Peter Olcott
My patent examiner told me that I have to pass the Machine
Transformation Test, just before the supreme court ruling,
What should I do?

The question now is whether you are claiming an abstract idea. The
machine or transformation test is one way to determine that, but not the
only way. (Note that the machine or transformation test is itself
really two alternatives. Your claimed invention can be tied to a
particular machine, or it can transform some article.)

Argue (and amend your claims, if necessary) either that you fit the
machine or transformation test, or that you are not merely claiming an
abstract idea for some other reason. It's perfectly reasonable to point
out to the Examiner that the law has changed recently. He should be
well aware of the revised guidelines I linked to.

Asking for an interview (in person or by phone) to run proposals past
him and get his reaction can also be a good idea. Study the revised
guidelines first.

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

Sorry, but I think it would be impossible to say without considering
your invention and your claims. And I would prefer not to do that,
sorry.

[Peter Olcott]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:09:11 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote...

Post by Peter Olcott
My patent examiner told me that I have to pass the
Machine
Transformation Test, just before the supreme court
ruling,
What should I do?

The question now is whether you are claiming an abstract
idea. The
machine or transformation test is one way to determine
that, but not the
only way. (Note that the machine or transformation test
is itself
really two alternatives. Your claimed invention can be
tied to a
particular machine, or it can transform some article.)
Argue (and amend your claims, if necessary) either that
you fit the
machine or transformation test, or that you are not merely
claiming an
abstract idea for some other reason. It's perfectly
reasonable to point
out to the Examiner that the law has changed recently. He
should be
well aware of the revised guidelines I linked to.
Asking for an interview (in person or by phone) to run
proposals past
him and get his reaction can also be a good idea. Study
the revised
guidelines first.

Post by Peter Olcott
Does a finite state machine qualify as a particular
machine
under the Machine Transformation Test?

Sorry, but I think it would be impossible to say without
considering
your invention and your claims. And I would prefer not to
do that,
sorry.

I will rephrase the question. Is the case of a machine
entirely implemented in software categorically excluded from
providing the Machine Transformation Test's "particular
machine" ?

Post by Tim Jackson
--
Tim Jackson
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Peter Olcott]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:10:41 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote...

Post by Peter Olcott
It seems that this link is saying that the "Machine
Transformation Test" was struck down, based on a recent
supreme court ruling.
http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/?p=9830
Is that what it means?

The Supreme Court said that the "machine or
transformation" test is not
the *exclusive* test for patent-eligible subject matter.
It can still
be used but so can other tests too.
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/bilski_guidance.jsp

Even though the most recent guidance does not incorporate
the supreme court decision, the August 25, 2010, interim
instructions were very helpful:

For computer implemented processes, the "machine" is often
disclosed as a general purpose computer. In these cases, the
general purpose computer may be sufficiently "particular"
when programmed to perform the process steps. Such
programming creates a new machine because a general purpose
computer, in effect, becomes a special purpose computer once
it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to
instructions from program software. To qualify as a
particular machine under the test, the claim must clearly
convey that the computer is programmed to perform the steps
of the method because such programming, in effect, creates a
special purpose computer limited to the use of the
particularly claimed combination of elements (i.e., the
programmed instructions) performing the particularly claimed
combination of functions.

Post by Tim Jackson
--
Tim Jackson
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:13:59 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote...

Post by Peter Olcott

Post by Tim Jackson
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/bilski_guidance.jsp

Even though the most recent guidance does not incorporate
the supreme court decision, the August 25, 2010, interim

Glad you found something useful.

The most recent guidance does incorporate the Supreme Court decision
(Bilski). I think you are looking at the previous August 2009
instructions. But they are still relevant, since the machine or
transformation test can still be applied, and the most recent guidance
refers to the August 2009 instructions for that.

Indeed, the Examiner probably will apply the machine or transformation
test unless you can give him a good reason not to.