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 is 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, move 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 Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

单选题 Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of_________.

单选题 Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】解析：事实细节题。全文一直没有讲Bilski案件的判决结果，而选项A、C都是在讲其判决结果，所以与原文文意相反。选项B是从原文“a very big deal”字面意思出发设置的干扰选项。a big deal在英文中的意思是“重要”，而不是“生意(transaction)”。选项D中potential相当于may，change对应第一段和第二段之间的转折。从第二段的review，eliminate也可以看出这是一种转折。本题选项D中还有may一词，正确答案往往语气委婉，因此D为正确答案。

单选题 The word "about-face" (Para 3) most probably means_________.

单选题 We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents_________.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】解析：事实细节题。由文章中“联邦审判要求这个案子由12名法官审，而不是普通的3人小组，并且要求判断是否要重新考虑之前的Bank ruling”，可以排除A；in the wake of相当于after，作者意思为：最高法院已经减少了对专利持有者的保护(protection)，而选项C的意思是减少了对专利持有者的尊重(esteem)，其中esteem是对protection的偷梁换柱；选项D在文中没有提及；最后一段中too many(被授予过多的专利)，表明法院认为很多business—method不应该被授予，选项B中often unnecessarily相当于too many，因此B为正确选项。

单选题 Which of the following would be the subject of the text?

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】解析：主旨大意题。首先排除选项B和选项C，与文章主题不符。判断选项A和选项D有一定难度。第一段讲过去business method很容易被授予专利。其中第一段的最后一句话已经暗含着对这种做法的反对。第二段转折：将会用一个案例来全面审查商业方法专利。第三段：对business method的约束(curbs)是法院态度的巨大转变。最后一段明确提出reacting to the antipatent trend at the supreme court。要注意的是原文始终没有说Bilski case的判决，因此只是一个looming(隐约地出现)的danger，而不是已经盛行的趋势。因此，正确选项为A“商业方法专利迫在眉睫的威胁”。