Appeal 2006-2107
Application 09/969,833
Appellant argues “output values of one-way chains . . . are in and of
themselves useful, concrete and tangible results in the field of cryptography”
because “such values, in and of themselves, can be used as passwords.” (Br.
6). We disagree. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the claims before us do
not recite either an intended use of “cryptography” or a result where the
output values are “passwords.” Further, even if both of these limitations
alone were added to the claims, without additional limitations there would
still be nothing in the claims that would meet the requirement of data or
signals which represent some real world activity.
Also with respect to claims 6, 13, and 19, Appellant argues the recited
limitation on the complexity or computational budget associated with
generation of an output value and relocation of pegs is itself a useful,
concrete and tangible result because it allows a given one-way chain to be
implemented in a lightweight device having limited memory and processor
resources. We disagree. Limiting the complexity or computational budget
does not change the result of the method. Rather than adding to the “result”
of the method as a whole, claims 6, 13, and 19, merely limit their results to a
subset of the results of the claims from which they depend. As above, we do
not find data or signals in these method claims which represent a real world
activity.
(7)
Appellant’s Method Claims Run Afoul of the “Abstract Idea” Exception
The Supreme Court has held that “[e]xcluded from such patent
protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185, 209 USPQ at 7. “An idea of itself is not patentable.’”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185, 209 USPQ at 7 (quoting Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v.
20
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013