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
27. Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?
28. The word “about-face” (Line 1, Paragraph 3) most probably means
29. We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents
30. Which of the following would be the subject of the text?
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。
全文翻译
过去十年中，成千上万的专利被授予了所谓的商业方法。亚马逊因其"一键式"在线支付系统获得了一项专利。美林证券为一种资产配置策略获得了法律保护。一位发明家甚至为一种搬箱子的技术申请了专利。
如今，美国最高专利法院似乎已经完全准备好缩减商业方法专利的授予范围——自十年前首次被授权以来，这类专利一直饱受争议。在一个令知识产权律师议论纷纷的举措中，美国联邦巡回上诉法院表示将利用一个特定案件对商业方法专利进行广泛审查。正如密苏里大学法学院的丹尼斯·D·克劳奇所说，这起被称为Bilski案的案件是"一件非常大的事"，它"有可能消除一整类专利"。
对商业方法专利的限制将是一个戏剧性的大转变，因为正是联邦巡回上诉法院自己在1998年所谓的State Street Bank案判决中引入了这类专利，批准了一项关于汇集共同基金资产方式的专利。该裁决引发了商业方法专利申请的爆炸式增长，最初是由新兴互联网公司试图为特定类型的在线交易争取独占权。后来，更多成熟的公司也争相将此类专利纳入自己的档案，哪怕只是作为对可能抢先一步的竞争对手的防御性举措。2005年，IBM在一份法庭文件中指出，它已经获得了300多项商业方法专利，尽管它质疑授予这些专利的法律依据。同样，一些华尔街投资公司用金融产品专利武装自己，尽管它们在法庭案件中反对这种做法。
Bilski案涉及一项声称的关于能源市场风险对冲方法的专利。联邦巡回上诉法院发布了一项不寻常的命令，规定该案将由法院全部12名法官审理，而不是通常的三人合议庭，并且它想要评估的一个问题是是否应该"重新考虑"其State Street Bank案的裁决。
联邦巡回上诉法院的这一行动紧随最高法院最近一系列缩小专利持有人保护范围的裁决之后。例如，去年四月，大法官们暗示太多专利被授予了那些显而易见的"发明"。乔治华盛顿大学法学院的专利律师兼教授哈罗德·C·韦格纳说，联邦巡回上诉法院的法官们正在"对最高法院的反专利趋势做出反应"。
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。
"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。
"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。