Appeal No. 95-1888 Application 08/011,042 because a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter employing a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is patentable subject matter even though a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea would not, by itself, be entitled to such protection.” In other words, “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program or digital computer.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981). Additionally, the Court in State Street indicated that the focus of a statutory subject matter analysis should be “on the essential characteristics of the subject matter, in particular, its practical utility.” State Street, 149 F.3d at 1375, 47 USPQ2d at 1602. In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed. REVERSED 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007