Appeal No. 2000-1195
Application No. 08/668,737
in its business. Mr. Roni Raitosola has declared that the
purchased software application is useful and practical in
predicting the useful information of sales probability for a
sales account.
In keeping with AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.,
172 F.3d 1352, 1356-57, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1451 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 946 (1999), and State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596,
1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 851 (1999),
apparatus claims 16 through 20 are clearly directed to a
“machine” in means-plus-function format that makes use of a
mathematically-related algorithm to produce the practical
application of “predicting a sales probability for a sales
account.” On the other hand, method claims 1 through 15 differ
substantially from the method claims in AT&T1 because they are
nothing more than an abstract mathematical algorithm that is
totally disembodied from the machine that performs the method
steps. Without a recitation of the type of machine for
performing the method steps, the method claims on appeal are
broad enough to read on a human performing each of the recited
steps. For this reason, we agree with the
1 In AT&T, the method claims expressly stated that they were
“for use in a telecommunications system.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007