fulfilled.” S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1952) (emphasis added); H.R. Rep.
No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1952) (emphasis added).
This statement does not support the contention that Congress intended “anything
under the sun” to be patentable. To the contrary, the language supports the opposite
view: a person may have “invented” anything under the sun, but it is “not necessarily
patentable” unless the statutory requirements for patentability have been satisfied.
Thus, the legislative history oft-cited to support business method patents undercuts,
rather than supports, the notion that Congress intended to extend the scope of section
101 to encompass such methods.
Moreover, the cited legislative history is not discussing process claims at all. The
quoted language is discussing “machines” and “manufactures;” it is therefore surprising
that it has been thought a fit basis for allowing patents on business processes.
III.
The Constitution does not grant Congress unfettered authority to issue patents.
See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.
Instead, the patent power is a “qualified authority . . .
[which] is limited to the promotion of advances in the ‘useful arts.’” Graham, 383 U.S. at
5; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1746 (2007) (reaffirming that
patents are designed to promote “the progress of useful arts”). What the framers
described as “useful arts,” we in modern times call “technology.” Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760
F.2d 1270, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Therefore, by mandating that patents
3
Article I, § 8 provides that “The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The patent
power “is the only one of the several powers conferred upon the Congress which is
accompanied by a specific statement of the reason for it.” Yaun, 188 F.2d at 380.
2007-1130
6