{"id":322,"date":"2012-06-09T15:47:52","date_gmt":"2012-06-09T15:47:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/\/?p=322"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:32","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:32","slug":"thats-easy-i-can-do-that-with-pen-and-paper-why-the-mental-steps-doctrine-could-bring-an-end-to-patent-protection-for-software","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/thats-easy-i-can-do-that-with-pen-and-paper-why-the-mental-steps-doctrine-could-bring-an-end-to-patent-protection-for-software\/","title":{"rendered":"That&#039;s Easy! I Can Do That with Pen and Paper!: Why the Mental Steps Doctrine Could Bring an End to Patent Protection for Software"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In August of 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions that held a piece of computer software as unpatentable because it did not fit any allowable subject matter. This decision was reached through an application of the test for processes to a claim that recited a manufacture. This decision should be reviewed by the Federal Circuit en banc. If it is not reversed, it may bring the subject of software patent eligibility into question.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In August of 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions that held a piece of computer software as unpatentable because it did not fit any allowable subject matter. This decision was reached through an application of the test for processes to a claim that <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/thats-easy-i-can-do-that-with-pen-and-paper-why-the-mental-steps-doctrine-could-bring-an-end-to-patent-protection-for-software\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,6],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=322"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7915,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322\/revisions\/7915"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}