Newsgroups: misc.int-property,comp.software-eng,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!usc!news.cerf.net!mvb.saic.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!world!srctran
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: PATNEWS:  CAFC rules that expert systems are patentable
Message-ID: <DI2HJq.3vy@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:23:50 GMT
Lines: 39
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.software-eng:38859 comp.ai:34750

!19951115 CAFC rules that expert systems are patentable

    As discussions continue to shape new examining guidelines for software
patents, you might want to consider a recent CAFC decision ruling that expert
systems are patentable.  Given that there are a fair number of expert system
patents and medical information systems patent, the decision actually applies
to lots of existing and pending software patents.

    The case is GMIS Inc. versus Health Payment Review Inc. (34 USPQ2d 1389),
and involved HPR's patent 5,253,164.  GMIS sued to have the patent declared
invalid, unenforceable and not infringed.  On a variety of actions, GMIS lost
their arguments.  I will cite the paragraph from the decision pertaining to
the patentability of expert systems.

    Claims 1, 2 and 16 set forth a process whereby inputted medical
    procedure codes result in recommendations being transmitted to the
    user of the system.  The submitted codes are authorized, rejected
    or converted into appropriate codes for payment.  These changes
    are not abstractions resulting from mere data processing, they are
    in fact the "product" produced by the system.  The entered procedure
    codes are, thus, transformed into something different; they become
    recommendations regarding payment of submitted medical claims.  This
    Court finds that such transformation meets the requirements of GMIS'
    proposed law of patentability [GMIS was try to argue that the claims
    should be rejected vis-a-vis "Gottschalk versus Benson", while HPR
    was relying on "Diamond versus Diehr".  Court sides with HPR].


Nice concise argument for the patentability of expert systems as just another
device.


Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA, 02178
617-489-3727,  patents@world.std.com
(for info on free subscription, send 'help' to   patents@world.std.com )
(for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to patents@world.std.com )
(for WWW patent searching, try  http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html )
