Part A: Reading Comprehension

Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

Text 2

Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been 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 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 said it would use a particular case 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 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 such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank 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 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 files, 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 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.

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

[A]their limited value to businesses. 

[B]their connection with asset allocation. 

[C]the possible restriction on their granting. 

[D]the controversy over their authorization. 

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. 

28. The word “about-face” (Line 1, Paragraph 3) most probably means

[A]loss of good will. 

[B]increase of hostility. 

[C]change of attitude. 

[D]enhancement of dignity. 

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

[A]are immune to legal challenges. 

[B]are often unnecessarily issued. 

[C]lower the esteem for patent holders. 

[D]increase the incidence of risks. 

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. 

Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)

试题精解

26. [C] the possible restriction on their granting.
【解析】细节题。文章第二段首句指出，“国家最高专利法庭似乎已完全准备好要缩减（scale back）商业方法专利”。随后提到这可能“消除整类专利（eliminate an entire class of patents）”。这种可能存在的限制引发了律师们的议论和各界的关注。故选 C。

27. [D] It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
【解析】推理题。第二段提到 Bilski 案是一件“大事（very big deal）”，具有“消除整类专利”的潜力。第四段进一步提到，法庭要通过此案评估是否要“重新考虑（reconsider）”之前的 State Street Bank 裁决。一旦推翻，将彻底改变美国专利授予的法律实践。故选 D。

28. [C] change of attitude.
【解析】词义题。about-face 原意为“向后转”。文章第三段提到，缩减商业方法专利将是一个剧烈的 about-face，因为正是联邦巡回法院自己（itself）在1998年引入了这类专利。从“引入”到“缩减”，显然是“态度的转变”。故选 C。

29. [B] are often unnecessarily issued.
【解析】推理题。最后一段提到，最高法院大法官示意“太多专利被授予了那些显而易见（obvious）的发明”。既然是显而易见的，那么授予专利就是“不必要的”。B 选项是对 too many ... obvious 的同义替换。

30. [A] A looming threat to business-method patents.
【解析】主旨题。文章从第一段介绍商业方法专利的兴起，转入第二段的核心：法庭准备缩减此类专利。全文通过 Bilski 案探讨了此类专利面临被取消或严格限制的危险。“逼近的威胁（looming threat）”准确概括了这一趋势。D 选项 anti-patent trend 只是最高院的一个背景，文章主体仍围绕 business-method patents 展开。

考研核心句型与长难句

【长难句剖析】

1. 倒装结构：In a move that...
"In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review..."
【解析】that 引导定语从句修饰 move。abuzz 作宾语补足语。主句主语是 Court of Appeals。

2. 让步与对比：Even as they took positions...
"Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice."
【解析】even as 引导时间状语从句，带有“尽管/与此同时”的对比意味。opposing 是现在分词作后置定语，修饰 court cases。