Ex Parte Jakobsson - Page 19

              Appeal 2006-2107                                                                     
              Application 09/969,833                                                               
              data … by a machine through a series of mathematical calculations into a             
              final share price, constitutes a practical application of a mathematical             
              algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it produces ‘a useful, concrete          
              and tangible result.’”  State Street at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601.  Likewise,          
              AT&T also ties this test to applications of mathematical algorithms:                 
              “Because the claimed process applies the Boolean principle to produce a              
              useful, concrete, and tangible result without pre-empting other uses of the          
              mathematical principle, on its face the claimed process comfortably falls            
              within the scope of § 101.”  AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358, 50 USPQ2d at 1452;              
              see also id. at 1361, 50 USPQ2d at 1453 (concluding that “the focus is               
              understood to be not on whether there is a mathematical algorithm at work,           
              but on whether the algorithm-containing invention, as a whole, produces a            
              tangible, useful result.”).                                                          
                    Accordingly, our understanding of the precedents at present is:  Any           
              computer program claimed as a machine implementing the program                       
              (Alappat, State Street) or as a method of a machine implementing the                 
              program (AT&T), is patentable if it transforms data and achieves a useful,           
              concrete and tangible result (State Street, AT&T).  Exceptions occur when            
              the invention in actuality pre-empts an abstract idea, as in a mathematical          
              algorithm (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676-677).                          
                    We see the question before us to be, whether Appellant’s claimed               
              “one or more values of a one-way chain”, is a useful, tangible, and concrete         
              result?  As discussed supra, the Federal Circuit regards the transformation of       
              intangible subject matter to be such a useful, tangible, and concrete result, so     
              long as data or signals represent some real world activity.  However, we do          
              not find data or signals in Appellant’s method claims which represent a real         
              world activity such as found in Arrhythmia, Alappat, or State Street.                

                                                19                                                 

Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013