Ex Parte George - Page 7

            Appeal Number: 2007-0133                                                                         
            Application Number: 10/223,466                                                                   

            not meet the requirements of our prior precedents.”  Benson, 409 U.S. at 71.                     
            Rather than rule on this question in Benson and Flook, the Supreme Court decided                 
            those cases based on the abstract idea exception to patentability.  Benson, 409 U.S.             
            at 71-72; Flook, 437 U.S. at 594-95.                                                             
                Since Diehr, the Federal Circuit has reviewed several computer technology                    
            cases, and in acknowledgment of the innovations occurring in this technological                  
            field, identified a third category of method claims that qualify as a “process.”                 
            Extrapolating from the Supreme Court’s “transformation and reduction of an                       
            article” test, the Federal Circuit has held that transformation of intangible subject            
            matter (i.e., data or signals) may also qualify as a § 101 process.   See, e.g., State           
            Street, 149 F.3d at 1373.  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, 172 F.3d                  
            at 1358.  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.  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 (Fed.                      
            Cir. 1992), as an example that qualifies as a § 101 ‘process” in addition to the                 
            Supreme Court’s test.  See id. at 1359.                                                          
                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                    


                                                     7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013