Docstoc

Bilski v. Kappos - Andrew Chin

Document Sample
Bilski v. Kappos - Andrew Chin Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                 The Supreme Court on Software Patents

                                                                                 Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
                                                                                 Parker v. Flook (1976)
   Bilski v. Kappos
                                                                                 Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
                                                                                 Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
                           Supreme Court Faculty Lunch
                     University of North Carolina School of Law
                                    July 1, 2010


    Andrew Chin                                                                   Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                  chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 1   05-04-2011                                                           Side 2




   The Supreme Court on
   Business Method Patents                                                       Bilski/Warsaw’s Patent Application
                                                                               1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a
                                                                                  commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price
   Bilski v. Kappos (2010)                                                        comprising the steps of:
                                                                                  (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
                                                                                  provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said
                                                                                  consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based
                                                                                  upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a
                                                                                  risk position of said consumer;
                                                                                  (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having
                                                                                  a counter-risk position to said consumers; and
                                                                                  (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
                                                                                  provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate
                                                                                  such that said series of market participant transactions
                                                                                  balances the risk position of said series of consumer
                                                                                  transactions.
    Andrew Chin                                                                   Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                  chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 3   05-04-2011                                                           Side 4




   Bilski/Warsaw’s Patent Application                                            Bilski/Warsaw’s Patent Application
 1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a                      1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a
    commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price                       commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price
    comprising the steps of:                                                      comprising the steps of:
    (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity                (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
    provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said                         provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said
    consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based                       consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based
    upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a                  upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a
    risk position of said consumer;                                               risk position of said consumer;
    (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having                 (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having
    a counter-risk position to said consumers; and                                a counter-risk position to said consumers; and
    (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity                (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
    provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate                  provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate
    such that said series of market participant transactions                      such that said series of market participant transactions
    balances the risk position of said series of consumer                         balances the risk position of said series of consumer
    transactions.                                                                 transactions.
    Andrew Chin                                                                   Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                  chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 5   05-04-2011                                                           Side 6




                                                                                                                                                            1
   Bilski/Warsaw’s Patent Application                                             Using the Invention
 1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a
    commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price
    comprising the steps of:                                                      • Households’ electricity bills range
    (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity                  from $60 to $100
    provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said
    consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based                       • Utility company offers households
    upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a                    a flat rate of $80
    risk position of said consumer;
    (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having
    a counter-risk position to said consumers; and
                                                                                                       •   Generator’s revenue ranges
    (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
                                                                                                           from $6 to $10 million
    provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate                                       •   Utility company offers generator
    such that said series of market participant transactions
    balances the risk position of said series of consumer                                                  a flat rate of $8 million
    transactions.
    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                            Side 7   05-04-2011                                                      Side 8




   Objections                                                                     Objections

   • Business method                                                              • Business method — 4 (Stevens)
   • Fails “machine-or-transformation” test                                       • _______________________________________
                                                                                    Fails “machine-or-transformation” test
   • Abstract idea                                                                • Abstract idea — 5 (Kennedy)


                                                                                                    Held unpatentable


    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                            Side 9   05-04-2011                                                     Side 10




   Objections                                                                     U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8

   • Business method                                                              The Congress shall have Power ...
   • Fails “machine-or-transformation” test                                       To promote the Progress of Science and
   • Abstract idea                                                                  useful Arts, by securing for limited
                                                                                    Times to Authors and Inventors the
                                                                                    exclusive Right to their respective
                                                                                    Writings and Discoveries;


    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 11   05-04-2011                                                     Side 12




                                                                                                                                                        2
   35 U.S.C. § 101                                             Judicial Exceptions to § 101

   Whoever invents or discovers any new and                    “It is a commonplace that laws of nature, physical
                                                                  phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
    useful process, machine, manufacture,                         patentable subject matter.
    or composition of matter, or any new                       “A patent could not issue, in other words, on the
    and useful improvement thereof, may                           law of gravity, or the multiplication tables, or
    obtain a patent therefor, subject to the                      the phenomena of magnetism, or the fact that
    conditions and requirements of this                           water at sea level boils at 100 degrees
                                                                  centigrade and freezes at zero — even though
    title.                                                        newly discovered.”
                                                                                           — Parker v. Flook (1978)
    Andrew Chin                                                 Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                              AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                        Side 13   05-04-2011                                                         Side 14




   Another Judicial Exception?                                 Stevens on Business Method Patents
                                                               •     Textual interpretation of “process” may be limited by
   “[A]lthough a process is not patent-                              accompanying categories of “machine, manufacture and
                                                                     composition of matter” to technological processes
     ineligible simply because it is useful for
                                                               •     Framers’ understanding of “useful Arts” was limited to
     conducting business, a claim that                               industrial, mechanical and manual arts
     merely describes a method of doing                        •     Before State Street Bank (Fed Cir. 1998), U.S. had long
     business does not qualify as a ‘process’                        history of innovation in business methods without
                                                                     patents
     under § 101.”
                                                               •     Competitive advantage is enough to motivate innovation
                 — Justice Stevens, concurring                       in business methods
                                                               •     Business method patents are vague, chill business
                                                                     activity and stifle competition
    Andrew Chin                                                 Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                              AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                        Side 15   05-04-2011                                                         Side 16




   35 U.S.C. § 101                                             35 U.S.C. § 100(b)

   Whoever invents or discovers any new and                    The term “process” means process, art, or
    useful process, machine, manufacture,                       method, and includes a new use of a
    or composition of matter, or any new                        known process, machine, manufacture,
    and useful improvement thereof, may                         composition of matter, or material.
    obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
    conditions and requirements of this
    title.

    Andrew Chin                                                 Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                              AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                        Side 17   05-04-2011                                                         Side 18




                                                                                                                                         3
   Another Judicial Exception?                                                   35 U.S.C. § 273(a)(3) & (b)(1)
                                                                                 (b)(1) It shall be a defense to an action for infringement ...
   “Any suggestion in this Court’s case law that the Patent                         with respect to any subject matter that would otherwise
     Act’s terms deviate from their ordinary meaning has only                       infringe one or more claims for a method ... if such
     been an explanation for the exceptions for laws of                             person had, acting in good faith, actually reduced the
                                                                                    subject matter to practice at least 1 year before the
     nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas....
                                                                                    effective filing date of such patent, and commercially
   “The court is unaware of any argument that the ‘ordinary,                        used the subject matter before the effective filing date of
     contemporary, common meaning’ of ‘method’ excludes                             such patent.
     business methods.”                                                          (a)(3) [T]he term “method” means a method of doing or
                                   — Justice Kennedy, majority                      conducting business ...




    Andrew Chin                                                                   Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                  chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                          Side 19   05-04-2011                                                          Side 20




   35 U.S.C. § 273(a)(3) & (b)(1) (1999)                                         Objections
   (b)(1) It shall be a defense to an action for infringement ...
      with respect to any subject matter that would otherwise
      infringe one or more claims for a method ... if such
                                                                                 • Business method patent
      person had, acting in good faith, actually reduced the
      subject matter to practice at least 1 year before the                      • Fails “machine-or-transformation” test
      effective filing date of such patent, and commercially
      used the subject matter before the effective filing date of                • Abstract idea
      such patent.
   (a)(3) [T]he term “method” means a method of doing or
      conducting business ...




    Andrew Chin                                                                   Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                  chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                          Side 21   05-04-2011                                                          Side 22




   In re Bilski (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)                                       Another Judicial Exception?
   A process is patent-eligible if:                                              “Any suggestion in this Court’s case law that the
   “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus,                           Patent Act’s terms deviate from their ordinary
      or                                                                           meaning has only been an explanation for the
                                                                                   exceptions for laws of nature, physical
   (2) it transforms a particular article into a                                   phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
      different state or thing.”
                                                                                                           — Justice Kennedy, majority




    Andrew Chin                                                                   Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                  chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                          Side 23   05-04-2011                                                          Side 24




                                                                                                                                                            4
   Another Judicial Exception?                                                        Benson’s Claim 8
                                                                                      8. The method of converting signals from binary coded decimal form into
   “Any suggestion in this Court’s case law that the                                      binary which comprises the steps of—
     Patent Act’s terms deviate from their ordinary                                   (1) storing the binary coded decimal signals in a reentrant shift register,
     meaning has only been an explanation for the                                     (2) shifting the signals to the right by at least three places, until there is a
                                                                                          binary ‘1’ in the second position of said register,
     exceptions for laws of nature, physical                                          (3) masking out said binary ‘1’ in said second position of said register,
     phenomena, and abstract ideas.”                                                  (4) adding a binary ‘1’ to the first position of said register,
                                — Justice Kennedy, majority                           (5) shifting the signals to the left by two positions,
                                                                                      (6) adding a ‘1’ to said first position, and
        But judicial exceptions aren’t as strict as they first seem...
                                                                                      (7) shifting the signals to the right by at least three positions in preparation
                                                                                          for a succeeding binary ‘1’ in the second position of said register.


    Andrew Chin                                                                        Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                       chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                     AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                               Side 25   05-04-2011                                                                            Side 26




   Preemption                                                                         Preemption
   Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)                                                        Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
   “[The patent would wholly pre-empt the                                             Parker v. Flook (1976)
     mathematical formula and in practical effect
     would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”                                      Field-of-use restrictions and insignificant post-
                                                                                        solution activity do not distinguish this case
   Parker v. Flook (1976)                                                               from Benson
   Diamond v. Diehr (1981)                                                            Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
   Bilski v. Kappos (2010)                                                            Bilski v. Kappos (2010)


    Andrew Chin                                                                        Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                       chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                     AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                               Side 27   05-04-2011                                                                            Side 28




   Preemption                                                                         In re Bilski (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)
   Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
                                                                                      “The Supreme Court … has enunciated a
   Parker v. Flook (1976)                                                               definitive test to determine whether a process
                                                                                        claim is tailored narrowly enough to
   Diamond v. Diehr (1981)                                                              encompass only a particular application of a
   “Their process admittedly employs a well-known                                       fundamental principle rather than to preempt
     mathematical equation, but they do not seek to                                     the principle itself.”
     pre-empt the use of that equation. Rather, they
     seek only to foreclose from others the use of
     that equation in conjunction with all of the                                                  Benson + Flook + Diehr = . . .
     other steps in their claimed process.”
   Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
    Andrew Chin                                                                        Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                       chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                     AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                               Side 29   05-04-2011                                                                            Side 30




                                                                                                                                                                                   5
   A “Clue” from Benson                                                           In re Bilski (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)

   “Transformation and reduction of an                                            A process is patent-eligible if:
     article ‘to a different state or thing’                                      “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus,
                                                                                     or
     is the clue to the patentability of a
                                                                                  (2) it transforms a particular article into a
     process claim that does not include                                             different state or thing.”
     particular machines.”


    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 31   05-04-2011                                                 Side 32




   Bilski v. Kappos: Questions Presented                                          Benson’s “Clue” Is Not A Test...
   •     Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a                      “Any suggestion in this Court’s case law that the
         “process” must satisfy the “machine-or-transformation”                     Patent Act’s terms deviate from their ordinary
         test despite Supreme Court precedent declining to limit
         patent eligibility beyond exclusions for “laws of nature,
                                                                                    meaning has only been an explanation for the
         physical phenomena, and abstract ideas”                                    exceptions for laws of nature, physical
   •      Whether the “machine-or-transformation” test                              phenomena, and abstract ideas....
         contradicts Congressional intent allowing patents for                                           — Justice Kennedy, majority
         “method[s] of doing or conducting business” [§ 273]




    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 33   05-04-2011                                                 Side 34




   But It Is A Clue                                                               But It Is A Clue

   Application of this test, the so-called ‘machine-or-                           Application of this test, the so-called ‘machine-or-
     transformation test,’ has thus repeatedly                                      transformation test,’ has thus repeatedly
     helped the Court to determine what is ‘a                                       helped the Court to determine what is ‘a
     patentable “process.”’                                                         patentable “process.”’
                               — Justice Breyer, concurring                                             — Justice Breyer, concurring


                                                                                                      Safe harbor


    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 35   05-04-2011                                                 Side 36




                                                                                                                                                    6
   Preemption                                                            Machine-or-Transformation
   Process claims                                                        Process claims
                                      Fewer limitations                                                    Meaningful
                                       (more abstract)                                                     limits on
                                                                                                           claim scope

                     substantially
                      all practical
                     applications

                                                                         Implemented                       Particularly
                                      More limitations                   by a particular                   transforms a
                                      (more applied)                     machine                           particular article

    Andrew Chin                                                           Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                          chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                        AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                  Side 37   05-04-2011                                                Side 38




   Machine-or-Transformation                                             Field-of-Use Limitations
   Process claims                                                        Process claims
                                       Meaningful
                                       limits on
                                       claim scope




   Implemented                         Particularly
   by a particular                     transforms a
   machine                             particular article
                     Safe harbor                                                           fields of use
    Andrew Chin                                                           Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                          chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                        AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                  Side 39   05-04-2011                                                Side 40




   Insignificant Extrasolution Activity                                  Objections
   Process claims
                                                                         • Business method patent
                                                                         • Fails “machine-or-transformation” test
                                                                         • Abstract idea




                      purposes
    Andrew Chin                                                           Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                          chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                        AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                  Side 41   05-04-2011                                                Side 42




                                                                                                                                          7
   Interpreting the Claim                                                         Interpreting the Claim
   Claim 1 “explain[s] the basic concept of hedging,
     or protecting against risk: ‘Hedging is a                                    “Allowing petitioners to patent risk hedging
     fundamental economic practice long prevalent                                   would preempt use of this approach in all
     in our system of commerce and taught in any                                    fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly
     introductory finance class.’ ... The concept of                                over an abstract idea.”
     hedging, described in claim 1 ... is an
     unpatentable abstract idea, just like the                                                             — Justice Kennedy, majority
     algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook.”                                              (citing Judge Rader’s dissent in In re Bilski)
                         — Justice Kennedy, majority
         (citing Judge Rader’s dissent in In re Bilski)

    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 43   05-04-2011                                                        Side 44




   Bilski/Warsaw’s Patent Application                                             Intrepreting the Claim
 1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a
    commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price
    comprising the steps of:                                                      The Court “discounts the application’s discussion
    (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity                  of what sorts of data to use, and how to analyze
    provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said
    consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based
                                                                                    those data....”
    upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a                                          — Justice Stevens, concurring
    risk position of said consumer;
    (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having
    a counter-risk position to said consumers; and
    (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity
    provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate
    such that said series of market participant transactions
    balances the risk position of said series of consumer
    transactions.
    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 45   05-04-2011                                                        Side 46




   Intrepreting the Claim                                                         Intrepreting the Claim

   “In other words, the Court artificially limits [sic]                           “The Court, in sum, never provides a satisfying account of
     petitioners’ claims to hedging, and then                                       what constitutes an unpatentable abstract idea.... The
                                                                                    Court essentially asserts its conclusion that petitioners’
     concludes that hedging is an abstract idea                                     application claims an abstract idea. This mode of
     rather than a term that describes a category of                                analysis (or lack thereof) may have led to the correct
     processes including petitioners’ claims.”                                      outcome in this case, but it also means that the Court’s
                                                                                    musings on this issue stand for very little.”
                            — Justice Stevens, concurring
                                                                                                                 — Justice Stevens, concurring




    Andrew Chin                                                                    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                   chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                 AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                           Side 47   05-04-2011                                                        Side 48




                                                                                                                                                           8
   Law Professors’ Amicus Briefs                              Bilski v. Doll: Lemley amicus

   • Lemley + 19 law and business professors                  The Court should “maintain the rule that
   • Sarnoff + 10 law professors + AARP                        patents are available for ‘anything under
                                                               the sun made by man,’ including
                                                               discoveries of ideas, laws of nature, or
                                                               natural phenomena so long as they are
                                                               implemented in a practical application.”


    Andrew Chin                                                Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                               chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                             AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                       Side 49   05-04-2011                                            Side 50




   Bilski v. Doll: Sarnoff amicus                             Bilski v. Doll: Sarnoff amicus

   To be patentable, “the invention (i.e., the                “This is because the science, nature, or
     creative, technological advance) must                      ideas must be treated as if they are
     reside in the [practical] application,                     already in the prior art, i.e., are publicly
     rather than in a discovery [of a                           known and free for all to use.
     fundamental principle] preceding or                      “Absent invention in applying such
     employed by it.”                                           discoveries, there is simply no invention
                                                                to patent.”


    Andrew Chin                                                Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                               chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                             AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                       Side 51   05-04-2011                                            Side 52




   Bilski v. Doll: Lemley amicus                              Bilski v. Doll: Lemley amicus
   Process and product claims                                 Process and product claims
                                                                                           Nonobviousness standard?




    Andrew Chin                                                Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                               chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                             AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                       Side 53   05-04-2011                                            Side 54




                                                                                                                           9
   Bilski v. Doll: Lemley amicus                                         How Hard Was the Math?
   Process and product claims
                                   How hard was the math?
                                                                         “There is nothing to suggest that ... one of
                                                                           ordinary mathematical skill armed with the
                                                                           Taylor reference would be able to discover the
                                                                           simpler equations which are the basis of the
                                                                           claimed programming.
                                                                         “Accordingly, we conclude that claim 19 as a
                                                                           whole defines an invention which is not
                                                                           obvious in view of the prior art.”
                                                                                           --In re Bernhardt, 417 F.2d 1395, 1402 (C.C.P.A. 1969)


    Andrew Chin                                                           Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                          chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                        AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                  Side 55   05-04-2011                                                                    Side 56




   Bilski v. Doll: Sarnoff amicus                                        What is an “Application”?
   Process and product claims
                                                                         • A mathematical transformation of the
                                                                           law of nature specifically adapted to
                                                                           solving a particular problem?
                                                                         • A use of the law of nature that addresses
                                                                           a practical problem?
                                                                                   • Practical = Physical?
                                                                                        What about machine claims?


    Andrew Chin                                                           Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                          chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                        AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                  Side 57   05-04-2011                                                                    Side 58




   Mechanical computers                                                  Mechanical computers

             1848           1948                                                   1848                1948                               2007




                     Past                                                                    Past                                       Future


    Andrew Chin                                                           Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                          chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                        AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                  Side 59   05-04-2011                                                                    Side 60




                                                                                                                                                              10
   Machines that do math                                                   U.S. Patent 4,575,943 (issued 1986)
                                                                           1A. An angle measuring apparatus comprising:
                                                                           three tape measures each having a housing and a
                                                                               tape extending therefrom;
                                                                           the tape of the first of said tape measures being
                                                                               connected to the housing of said second tape
                                                                               measure;
                                                                           the tape of said second tape measure being
                                                    Future                     connected to the housing of said third tape
                                                                               measure; and
                                                                           the tape of said third tape measure being
                                  Present                                      connected to the housing of said first tape
                                                                               measure;
                  Past                                                     said tape measures being adjustable such that
                                                                               the indicia output on each are identical when
                                                                               said apparatus indicates a right triangle.
    Andrew Chin                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                    Side 61   05-04-2011                                                           Side 62




   A fundamental tool of geometry                                          Yates’s Theorem                 (1931)

                                                                                                   F2                    F1

                                                                                                                 E
                                                                                     F1                                                 F2




    Andrew Chin                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                    Side 63   05-04-2011                                                           Side 64




   Yates’s linkage for drawing ellipses              (1931)                Hilbert’s “peculiar” theorem                        (1932)

                         F2               F1                               “Now let two wheels Z1 and Z2
                                                                           be mounted at any two points
                                                                           of the rods a1 and a2 in such a
                                 E                                         way as to be free to rotate
             F1                                     F2                     about these rods but not to
                                                                           slide along them.”
      “Upon the suggestion of Professor Frank
      Morley, a mechanical device ... was made
      that will exhibit a fairly large portion of
      each curve.”

    Andrew Chin                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                    Side 65   05-04-2011                                                           Side 66




                                                                                                                                                       11
   Hilbert’s “peculiar” theorem                        (1932)                              Hilbert’s “peculiar” theorem                      (1932)

   “[T]he study of Yates’
   apparatus leads to a peculiar
   geometric theorem which may
   be formulated as follows:”



                                                                                             “Given a roulette generated by a focus of an ellipse, on the normals to
                                                                                             the roulette draw the points whose distance from the curve, measured
                                                                                             in the direction of the center of curvature, is equal to the constant
                                                                                             sum of focal radii for the ellipse...


    Andrew Chin                                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                                    Side 67   05-04-2011                                                                 Side 68




                                                                                           A claim covering all structural uses of
   Hilbert’s “peculiar” theorem                        (1932)                              Yates’s Theorem




     “then the points thus marked out lie on another roulette generated by
     a focus of the ellipse; this ellipse is congruent to the first ellipse and
     rolls on the same curve as the first ellipse but on the opposite side of
     that curve.”


    Andrew Chin                                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                                    Side 69   05-04-2011                                                                 Side 70




   Linkages and patents                                                                    Watt’s patent specification
                                                                                             “My second new improvement on the
                                                                                               steam engines consists in methods of
                                                                                               directing the piston rods, the pump
                                                                                               rods, and other parts of these engines,
                                                                                               so as to move in perpendicular or other
                                                                                               straight or right lines ... so as to enable
                                                                                               the engine to act on the working beams
                                                                                               ... both in the ascent and descent of
                                             Flash of Genius (2008)                            their pistons.”

    Andrew Chin                                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                                    Side 71   05-04-2011                                                                 Side 72




                                                                                                                                                                             12
   Watt’s “parallel motion” linkage                                     Watt’s “parallel motion” linkage




    Andrew Chin                                                          Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                         chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                       AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                 Side 73   05-04-2011                                         Side 74




   Watt’s “parallel motion” linkage           (1784)                    Watt’s patent specification
                            “I am more proud of the parallel              “[A]ll the dimensions admit of
                               motion than of any other                     considerable variation, according to the
                               mechanical invention I have                  exigency of the case, and, preserving
                               ever made.”                                  the proportions, are applied to cylinders
                                                                            of different diameters and lengths of
                                                                            stroke.”




    Andrew Chin                                                          Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                         chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                       AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                 Side 75   05-04-2011                                         Side 76




   Da Vinci’s three-bar linkage                                         The Peaucellier cell




                     Codex Madrid I (1493)
    Andrew Chin                                                          Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                         chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                       AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                 Side 77   05-04-2011                                         Side 78




                                                                                                                                  13
   The Peaucellier cell                                                     Peaucellier’s Theorem
                                            Lord Kelvin “nursed it             M. Peaucellier, Note sur une question de géométrie de compas, 12
                                            as if it had been his                 NOUVELLES ANNALES DE MATHÉMATIQUES (2D SER.) 71, 74 (1873)
                                            own child, and when
                                            a motion was made to
                                            relieve him of it,
                                            replied ‘No! I have
                                            not had nearly enough
                                            of it - it is the most
                                            beautiful thing I have
                                            ever seen in my life.’”
                                            – J.J. Sylvester


    Andrew Chin                                                              Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                             chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                           AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                     Side 79   05-04-2011                                                               Side 80




   Peaucellier’s Theorem                                                    U.S. Patent 1,190,215 (issued 1916)

                                                                            1. A constant product
                                                                               linkage comprising a
                                                                               large Peaucellier cell
                                                                               and a similar smaller
                                                                               Peaucellier cell, and
                                                                               connections to keep
                                                                               their corresponding
                                                                               angles equal.


    Andrew Chin                                                              Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                             chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                           AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                     Side 81   05-04-2011                                                               Side 82




   Kinematics                                                               Machine

   The science of pure motion, which studies                                A device consisting of fixed and moving
      the relative geometric displacements of points                          parts that modifies mechanical energy
        and links of a mechanism,
                                                                              and transmits it in a more useful form.
      without regard to
                                                                                              American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
        forces that generate those displacements or
        the physical embodiment that realizes them
                                                                                      Patent machines, not kinematics!
                         F = ma
                       KE = ½ mv2
    Andrew Chin                                                              Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                             chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                           AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                     Side 83   05-04-2011                                                               Side 84




                                                                                                                                                            14
   A Causal Ontology of the Patent System                                          A Causal Ontology of the Patent System

   •     The conception of an invention as a mental cause of its                   •     The conception of an invention as a mental cause of its
         reduction to practice                                                           reduction to practice
   •     The incentive of a patent grant as an economic cause of                   •     The incentive of a patent grant as an economic cause of
         the hastening of an invention’s discovery, disclosure                           the hastening of an invention’s discovery, disclosure
         and/or commercialization                                                        and/or commercialization
   •     The disclosure of a patentable invention as a constructive                •     The disclosure of a patentable invention as a constructive
         legal cause of the public’s use of the claimed invention                        legal cause of the public’s use of the claimed invention
         during the patent term                                                          during the patent term
   •     The process of using a patented invention as the                          •     The process of using a patented invention as the
         empirical cause of a beneficial effect                                          empirical cause of a beneficial effect

    Andrew Chin                                                                     Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                    chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                  AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                            Side 85   05-04-2011                                                            Side 86




   My Test                                                                         U.S. Patent 4,575,943 (issued 1986)
                                                                                   1A. An angle measuring apparatus comprising:
                                                                                   three tape measures each having a housing and a
   • A patentable invention entails an inventive                                       tape extending therefrom;
     design of a causal process; specifically, the                                 the tape of the first of said tape measures being
     process of using the invention to cause a                                         connected to the housing of said second tape
                                                                                       measure;
     beneficial effect.
                                                                                   the tape of said second tape measure being
   • A causal process is a world line of an object                                     connected to the housing of said third tape
                                                                                       measure; and
     that possesses a conserved quantity (e.g.,                                    the tape of said third tape measure being
     mass, energy, momentum, etc.).                                                    connected to the housing of said first tape
                                                                                       measure;
                                                                                   said tape measures being adjustable such that
                                                                                       the indicia output on each are identical when
                                                                                       said apparatus indicates a right triangle.
    Andrew Chin                                                                     Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                    chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                  AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                            Side 87   05-04-2011                                                            Side 88




   Kinematic diagram                                                               Kinematic diagram




    Andrew Chin                                                                     Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                    chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                  AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                            Side 89   05-04-2011                                                            Side 90




                                                                                                                                                                15
   Kinematic diagram                                                                                       MedX Avenger® leg press




                                                                                                                     U.S. Patent 6,220,993
                                                                                                                     (issued Apr. 24, 2001)
    Andrew Chin                                                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                                                    Side 91   05-04-2011                                                        Side 92




   MedX Avenger® leg press                                                                                 MedX Avenger® leg press
                                                                 1. A leg press machine
                                                                    comprising in                                                             ... whereby the force required
                                                                    combination,                                                                   of the exerciser to move
                                                                    a frame including a seat                                                       the movement arm from
                                                                    for an exerciser,                                                              the retracted towards the
                                                                    a movement arm                                                                 extended position
                                                                    engagable by the feet of an                                                    increases after initial
                                                                    exerciser for movement                                                         movement from the
                                                                    between retracted and                                                          retracted position.
                   U.S. Patent 6,220,993                            extended positions...                            U.S. Patent 6,220,993
                   (issued Apr. 24, 2001)                                                                            (issued Apr. 24, 2001)
    Andrew Chin                                                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                                                    Side 93   05-04-2011                                                        Side 94




   U.S. Patent 6,997,669                                            (issued 2006 to C. Gosselin)           Machines that do math
         1. A manipulator for receiving and displacing an object, comprising:
         a base;
         a moving portion, adapted to receive the object;
         four articulated support legs each extending between the moving
               portion and the base for supporting the moving portion, each of
               the articulated support legs being connected to the base by a first
               R-joint with axes of the first R-joints being parallel to one
               another, and with sequentially second, third, fourth and fifth R-
               joints connecting the first R-joints to the moving portion, with
               axes of the fifth R-joints not all being coplanar, the articulated                                                                                Future
               support legs being topologically equivalent to one another with
               respect to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth R-joints, the
               articulated support legs being arranged with respect to one
               another between the base and the moving portion so as to
               restrict movement of the moving portion to three translational                                                                 Present
               degrees of freedom and one rotational degree of freedom; and
         four angular actuators being each operatively connected to a different
               one of the R-joints for controlling the movement of the moving
               portion in any one of the three translational degrees of freedom
                                                                                                                        Past
               and the one rotational degree of freedom.
    Andrew Chin                                                                                             Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu                                                                                            chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com                                                                                          AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                                                                                    Side 95   05-04-2011                                                        Side 96




                                                                                                                                                                                    16
   The bagatelle computer




    Andrew Chin
    chin@unc.edu
    AndrewChin.com

05-04-2011                  Side 97




                                      17

				
DOCUMENT INFO