Appeal Number: 2007-0133
Application Number: 10/223,466
prediction outside of their preambles.
ANALYSIS
i) Appellant’s claims appear to be unpatentable under section 101 because
they do not qualify as a process under section 101, as that term has been
interpreted by case law.
Appellant nominally claims a method for predicting sleep and activity levels.
The recited steps of claims 1, 5 through 15, 35, and 37 are drawn to methods of
drawing a chart. The end result of these claims is just that, a chart. See page 6 of
our February 6, 2006 decision and discussion infra.
These method claims differ from traditional process claims in several respects.
For example, the claims do not recite any particular way of implementing the steps,
nor do they require any machine or apparatus to perform the steps. In addition, the
method claims do not recite any electrical, chemical, or mechanical acts or results,
which are typical in traditional process claims. Furthermore, the claims do not call
for any physical transformation of an article to a different state or thing, nor do
they require any transformation of data or signals. A case involving the issue of
whether method claims with these characteristics qualify as statutory processes is
presently on appeal to the Federal Circuit: In re Comiskey, No. 2006-1286.
Principles of law relating to qualification as a statutory process
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013