Appeal 2007-1246
Application 10/014,180
considered to be an abstract idea, then the claims are not eligible for and,
therefore, are excluded from patent protection.
Claims 1 through 9 recite a method "for use in a recommender." The
recommender is solely recited as part of an intended use clause, and the
claims do not specify whether or not the recommender is a computer. Thus,
the methods appear to be disembodied concepts. Further, the claimed steps
are (1) computing a distance, and (2) aggregating the distances to determine
the closeness of two items. Both steps are mathematical functions, and the
result is a mathematical value. Accordingly, claims 1 through 9 merely
recite mathematical algorithms. Claims 10 through 18 likewise recite
computing a distance and aggregating the distances, but add a third step of
assigning the item to a group associated with a minimum distance value. As
this third step is merely another mathematical function, claims 10 through 18
are also mathematical algorithms.
A programmed general purpose machine which merely performs a
mathematical algorithm has been held nonstatutory as an attempt to patent
the algorithm itself, see Id. and In re de Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 1243, 195
USPQ 439, 445 (CCPA 1977). We believe that a similar case exists for
"manufactures" which store programs that cause a machine to perform a
mathematical algorithm stored on a tangible medium.
Claims 19, 20, and 22 are directed to general purpose machines which
merely perform the mathematical algorithms recited in claims 1 and 10.
Also, claims 21 and 23 are directed to articles which store programs that
cause the machines to perform the mathematical algorithms of claims 1 and
10. Thus, claims 19 through 23 are nonstatutory as being further attempts to
patent the algorithms themselves.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013