命题组改版过的真题                 Text 2

Over the past decade, thousands of patents have seen granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its “one-click” online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.

 

Now the nation’s top patent court appears completely ready（注意：原版是poised，命题人这里同义替换了 ） to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz，（注意：这里有个逗号）the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit （注意：原文此处加了on Feb. 15 ）said it would use a particular case（注意：原版是a case pending before it.） to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known, is “a very big deal”, says Dennis D. Crouch (注意：原文这有逗号，并加上, a patent professor at，后把at 改成of)  of the University of Missouri School of law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”

    

Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced（注意：原文是ushered in）such patents with is 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank (注意：原文后有一个括号写了STT) case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging（注意：原版用nascent）internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, move established companies raced to add such patents to their files（注意原文用：portfolios）, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.

 

The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court’s judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is weather it should “reconsider” its State Street Bank ruling.

 

The Federal Circuit’s action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Count that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are “reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court,” says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

 

26. Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of __________.

A. their limited value to business. 商业价值有限。

B. their connection with asset allocation. 它们与资产配置关联。

C. the possible restriction on their granting. 批准可能受到限制。

D. the controversy over their authorization. 对于专利授权有争议。

正确答案：C. the possible restriction on their granting

【分析】：题目问题是：商业专利方法在最近引起关注的原因是是什么?

本题关键词为Business-method patents，可以定位于第二段。第一段说：“过去10年商业方法授予了成千上万的专利”；第二段说，“国家最高专利法庭准备对商业模式专利进行缩减，这件事引起了广泛争议。”AB属于无中生有。而且文章强调recently应该是第二段now引出的内容，即美国the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 要全面审查商业模式专利，有可能会 eliminate an entire class of patents。C选项是最近公众对商业专利方法关注的可能结果——要限制过多授予 专利权。

 

 

27. Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?

A. Its ruling complies with the court decisions.

B. It involves a very big business transaction.

C. It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.

D. It may change the legal practices in the U.S.

正确答案：D. It may change the legal practices in the U.S.

【分析】B错误的原因是错误理解原文 “a very big deal”的含义。文章不是指big business transaction的意思。而是指Bilski这个案子很重要。文章第二段用Bilski的案例强调the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 要通过Bilski的案例来全面审查商业专利方法。而且根据我们的傻瓜阅读法，有may可以优先选。

 

28. The word “about –face” (Line 1, Para 3) most probably means __________.

A. loss of good will.

B. increase of hostility.

C. change of attitude.

D. enhancement of dignity.

正确答案：C. change of attitude.

【分析】：本题是典型的猜词题，从前两段主要内容和第三段开头，不难看出原来the Federal Circuit 鼓励专利申请，现在要抑制，约束（即三段第一个单词curbs），即态度变化了。

  

29. We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents __________.

A. are important to legal challenges.

B. are often unnecessarily issued.

C. lower the esteem for patent holders.

D. increase the incidence of risks.

正确答案：B. are often unnecessarily issued.

【分析】：正确答案来自原文第五段：“too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious.” D是正反混淆，与第四段第一句不符合，也不符合常识。专利不可能增加风险，而是规避风险的。AC无中生有。

 

30. Which of the following would be the subject of the text?

A. A looming threat to business-method patents.

B. Protection for business-method patent holders.

C. A legal case regarding business-method patents.

D. A prevailing trend against business-method patents.

正确答案：A. A looming threat to business-method patents.

【分析】：本题是全文主旨题。文章首段提到“过去10年”，而二段首句转到“Now”，文章的此脉络结构可知“ A prevailing tread”可统领文意，此外文章二至四段，主要谈及联邦法院对“business-method patents”的立场变化，即缩小保护范围，要重新审查商业方法专利。AD均像答案，但D选项关键词只出现在第五段中最后一句，The judges on the Federal circuit are “reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court,”说明反对商业方法专利只是原文一个细节，不是主题，而且文章主要内容说了最高专利法院的态度变化，势必会威胁到商业方法专利，所以选A是可以的。 

 

 

 

原版出处：

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_09/b4073068471067.htm?chan=magazine+channel_what's+next

A Pending Threat to Patents

A case before an appeals court could make it harder to win legal protection for business methods

by Michael Orey

Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com (AMZN) received one for its "one-click" online payment system. Merrill Lynch (MER) got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.

Now the nation's top patent court appears poised to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 15 said it would use a case pending before it to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D. Crouch, a patent professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."

EXPLOSION IN FILINGS

Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that ushered in such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank (STT) case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by nascent Internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their portfolios, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM (IBM) noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.

The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.

The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.