判断题In 1998 America introduced so-called “business-method” patents, which have greatly encouraged commercial innovation.A 对B 错

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 Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri 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 films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease 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.
The word "about-face" (Paragraph 3) most probably means

A.loss of good will
B.increase of hostility
C.change of attitude
D.enhancement of dignity

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 Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri 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 films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease 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.
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.

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 DennisD.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 films 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 HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.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

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 DennisD.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 films 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 HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.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

Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.
Those who are against gene patents believe that_____

A.genetic tests are not reliable
B.only manmade products are patentable
C.patents on genes depend much on innovation
D.courts should restrict access to genetic tests

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 Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri 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 films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease 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.
Business-method patents have recendy 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

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 DennisD.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 films 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 HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.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.

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 Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri 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 films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease 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.
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.

Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.
By saying“Each meeting was packed”（Line 4，Para.6）,the author means that_____

A.the supreme court was authoritative
B.the BIO was a powerful organization
C.gene patenting was a great concern
D.lawyers were keen to attend conventions

Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.
According to Hans Sauer,companies are eager to win patents for____

A.establishing disease correlations
B.discovering gene interactions
C.drawing pictures of genes
D.identifying human DNA