Three inventors developed a software program that generated a particularly clear screen display on a

computer.  The PTO refused to issue a patent for this software.  Do the inventors have a right to a
patent?  Argument for the PTO: This software is merely a series of mathematical formulas that cannot
be patented.  Argument for the inventors: The program is not merely a mathematical concept or an
abstract idea, but rather a specific machine to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result.

Issue:

The PTO refused to issue patent for the software.

Rule of Law:

Computer programs are software and are defined as a set of statements or instructions that can be used
directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

For any Subject to be eligible for patent it should fulfill two criteria. First of all for any subject to be
patented, the invention should be in one of the four categorizes. According to 35 U.S.C 101 the four
categories of invention as appropriate subject matter of patent are process, machine, manufactures and
composition of matter. Here the term process means process, art, methods and includes new use of
known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter or material whereas machine,
manufactures and compositions categorizes are defined as things. Second the claimed invention also
must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter i.e. the claim must not be directed to judicial exception.
Judicial exceptions are the subject matter that the court have found to be outside of or exceptions to
the four statutory categories of invention and are limited to abstract ideas, law of nature and natural
phenomena(including products of nature). https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

The other terms used to describe exceptions are physical phenomenon, product of nature, scientific
principle, system that depends on human intelligence alone, disembodied concepts, mental process and
disembodied mathematical algothrims and formulas.
(https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html#ch2100_d29a1b_139db_e0) The reason
these are not patentable is that abstract ideas, law of nature and natural phenomenon are the basic
tools of scientific and technological work and supreme course has concerns that monopolizing these
tools by granting patents may impede innovation rather than promote it.

https://milleripl.com/blogs/patents/is-software-protected-by-copyrights-or-patents

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1036/957

Application of rule of law

Conclusion