Appeal No. 2000-1608
Application 08/953,998
We interpret the Examiner's reference to "algorithm" to
refer to "mathematical algorithms." The exception to § 101
applies only to mathematical algorithms since any process is an
"algorithm" in the sense that it is a step-by-step procedure to
arrive at a given result. See In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758,
764 n.4, 205 USPQ 397, 405 n.4 (CCPA 1980). "[T]he
judicially-defined proscription against patenting of a
'mathematical algorithm,' to the extent such a proscription still
exists, is narrowly limited to mathematical algorithms in the
abstract." AT&T v. Excel Communications, Inc. , 172 F.3d 1352,
1356, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ( citing State St.
Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc. , 149 F.3d 1368,
1374-75, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The key to
statutory subject matter is whether the claimed subject matter is
applied in a "useful way" or directed to a "practical
application," which the Federal Circuit has said requires "a
useful, concrete and tangible result." State St., 149 F.3d at
1375, 47 USPQ2d at 1602. It is not required that there be a
"physical transformation" or conversion of subject matter from
one state into another for there to be statutory subject matter.
AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358-59, 50 USPQ2d at 1452-53.
Although the steps of claim 1 involve mathematical
calculations, the subject matter of claim 1 is not directed to a
mathematical algorithm per se (i.e., a mathematical in the
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007