This HTML5 document contains 45 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dcthttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n12https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
goldhttp://purl.org/linguistics/gold/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Ex_parte_Bowman
rdf:type
yago:Act100030358 yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Event100029378 yago:Choice100161243 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:Action100037396 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:WikicatDecisionsOfTheBoardOfPatentAppealsAndInterferences yago:Decision100162632
rdfs:label
Ex parte Bowman
rdfs:comment
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Board's subsequent Ex Parte Lundgren decision, but the Board's and then the Federal Circuit's In re Bilski opinion then superseded Lundgren.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.
dct:subject
dbc:2001_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Law_articles_needing_an_infobox dbc:Decisions_of_the_Board_of_Patent_Appeals_and_Interferences dbc:United_States_patent_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
3040409
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1051051463
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbc:2001_in_United_States_case_law dbr:State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group dbc:Law_articles_needing_an_infobox dbr:Patent-eligible dbr:Freeman-Walter-Abele_Test dbr:U.S.P.Q.2d dbr:Machine-or-transformation_test dbr:Ex_Parte_Lundgren dbr:Diamond_v._Diehr dbc:Decisions_of_the_Board_of_Patent_Appeals_and_Interferences dbr:Board_of_Patent_Appeals_and_Interferences dbr:In_re_Bilski dbc:United_States_patent_case_law dbr:Bilski_v._Kappos dbr:Business_method_patent
owl:sameAs
n12:4jkrE yago-res:Ex_parte_Bowman freebase:m.08mjrn wikidata:Q5419162
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Italic_title dbt:US-case-law-stub dbt:Reflist
dbo:abstract
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.
gold:hypernym
dbr:Decision
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Ex_parte_Bowman?oldid=1051051463&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
1436
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Ex_parte_Bowman