Ex Parte George - Page 11

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

            because without them, “a competent draftsman [could] evade the recognized                        
            limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection.”  Diehr, 450           
            U.S. at 192.                                                                                     
                   Analysis of holding appellants claims as drawn to abstract ideas                          
                   Because Appellant’s claims 1, 5 through 15, 35, and 37 are completely                     
            untethered from any sort of structure or physical step, they are directed to a                   
            disembodied concept.  In other words, the claim is nothing but a disembodied                     
            abstract idea until it is instantiated in some physical way so as to be limited to a             
            practical application of the idea.  For example, the claims do not specify whether               
            the “predicting sleep and activity levels” is a computer, a human, or some other                 
            implementation.  Nor does the claim recite who or what is performing the step of                 
            “providing” the chart, or the step of “providing lines and shapes.”  Instead, those              
            limitations merely describe steps or goals of the concept.  Just as the concept of               
            inserting a chart drawing step into a prediction method is an abstract idea, so too is           
            the notion to insert another chart element identifying what that element will be.                
            “Accordingly, the claim is so broad that it is directed to the abstract idea itself,             
            rather than a practical implementation of the concept.  In addition, the claims are              
            “so abstract and sweeping” that they would “wholly pre-empt” all applications of                 
            the notion of having a chart drawn to a sleep and activity prediction method.  See               
            Benson, 409 U.S. at 68-72; see also Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544 (quoting Benson).                   
                   It is true that process claims are not necessarily required to recite the means           
            or structure for performing the claimed steps.  See, e.g., AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1359.               
            But process claims that do not require any machine implementation, and thus are                  
                                                                                                             
            State Street, 149 F.3d at 1377.  Rather, pre-emption was not at issue in State Street            
            since the claim in that case was particularly confined to a machine implementation,              
            and did not suffer from the same defect as Appellant’s claims.                                   

                                                     11                                                      

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013