• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Ex parte Bowman     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatDecisionsOfTheBoardOfPatentAppealsAndInterferences, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)

Type: yago:Abstraction100002137yago:Act100030358yago:Action100037396yago:Choice100161243yago:Decision100162632yago:Event100029378yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntitySupreme Court of the United States caseyago:WikicatDecisionsOfTheBoardOfPatentAppealsAndInterferences New Facet based on Instances of this Class

Ex Parte Bowman 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1669 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2001) was a decision by the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences which asserted that in order to be patent-eligible, a process had to involve or promote the technological arts. This decision was overruled by the Board's subsequent Ex Parte Lundgren decision, but the Board's and then the Federal Circuit's In re Bilski opinion then superseded Lundgren. In re Bilski, however, rejects use of "not in the technological arts" as a basis for a rejection, although it seems to accept the concept when differently named. Bilski was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos.