Ex Parte Jakobsson - Page 13

              Appeal 2006-2107                                                                     
              Application 09/969,833                                                               
              that transformation of intangible subject matter (i.e., data or signals) may         
              also qualify as a § 101 process.  See, e.g., State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.        
              Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601                
              (Fed. Cir. 1998).  Responding to the argument that process claims must               
              recite a “physical transformation,” the Federal Circuit in AT&T ruled that           
              “physical transformation” “is not an invariable requirement, but merely one          
              example of how a mathematical algorithm may bring about a useful                     
              application.”  AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352,              
              1358, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  Quoting the Supreme                    
              Court’s language, “e.g., transforming or reducing an article to a different          
              state or thing” from Diehr, the AT&T court noted the usage of “e.g.”                 
              “denotes an example, not an exclusive requirement.”  Id. at 1359, 50                 
              USPQ2d at 1452.  AT&T went on to cite the transformation of intangible               
              data signals in the method claim of Arrhythmia Research Technology Inc. v.           
              Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053, 1059, 22 USPQ2d 1033, 1038 (Fed. Cir.                
              1992), as an example that qualifies as a § 101 “process” in addition to the          
              Supreme Court’s test.  See id. at 1359, 50 USPQ2d at 1452.                           
                    Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has consistently used its own “data           
              transformation” test in assessing the eligibility of various machine-                
              implemented claims.  In Alappat, the court held that “data, transformed by a         
              machine” “to produce a smooth waveform display” “constituted a practical             
              application of an abstract idea.”  State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d         
              at 1601.  Specifically, the court in Alappat stated that the claimed invention       
              as a whole was directed to a machine for “converting discrete waveform data          
              samples into anti-aliased pixel illumination intensity data to be displayed on       
              a display means.”  33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir.               
              1994) (en banc).  In Arrhythmia, the court held “the transformation of               

                                                13                                                 

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013