<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law &#187; The Hartford</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/tag/the-hartford/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:00:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance Company Invents Faster Way To Deliver Life Insurance</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/08/insurance-company-invents-faster-way-to-deliver-life-insurance/id=20269/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/08/insurance-company-invents-faster-way-to-deliver-life-insurance/id=20269/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[machine or transformation test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hartford]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=20269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday The Hartford announced via press release that it had invented a faster way to deliver life insurance, which is now patent pending.  Can you that be true?  As with many things associated with the law, particularly patent law, a simple, straightforward answer is not possible.  In a nutshell, it is possible that one could patent a method of more quickly delivering life insurance if the process is new and non-obvious.  However, given the law that the United States Patent and Trademark Office is required to apply there will need to be much more than a real world business method, or "pure business method" as they are sometimes referred to.<div class='yarpp-related-rss'>

Related posts:<ol>
<li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/07/18/patenting-business-methods-and-software-in-the-u-s/id=18209/' rel='bookmark' title='Patenting Business Methods and Software in the U.S.'>Patenting Business Methods and Software in the U.S.</a><small>Any method claim that does not require machine implementation or does not cause a transformation will fail the test and will be rejected under § 101. The importance of this from a practical standpoint is that business methods not tied to a machine are going to be rejected under § 101 and the rejection will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome....</small></li>
<li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/27/uk-perspective-bancorp-services-v-sun-life-assurance/id=26895/' rel='bookmark' title='UK Perspective: Bancorp Services v. Sun Life Assurance'>UK Perspective: Bancorp Services v. Sun Life Assurance</a><small>The EPO applies what might be referred to as a “subtraction” test for claims containing a mixture of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible features, those features that are patent-ineligible being disregarded and novelty and obviousness under aa. 54 and 56 EPC being evaluated on the basis of the remaining features. Judge Lourie suggested a somewhat similar “subtraction” test here....</small></li>
<li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/28/business-methods-and-software-are-still-patentable/id=27658/' rel='bookmark' title='Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!'>Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!</a><small>For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....</small></li>
</ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.
</div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/08/insurance-company-invents-faster-way-to-deliver-life-insurance/id=20269/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
