Appeal 2007-1246
Application 10/014,180
We also find that the methods of claims 1 and 10 fail to produce a
useful, concrete, and tangible result as neither result is concrete and tangible.
Specifically, the result of claim 1 is an aggregation of "distances" to
determine the "closeness" of two items. However, the distances referenced
in the claims are abstractions, not physical distances, as they relate to
similarities between items. Likewise, the result of claim 10 is the
assignment of an item to a group, another abstraction. Thus, neither method
produces a concrete and tangible result. Since, the general purpose
machines and the articles of claims 19 through 23 produce the same results
as claims 1 and 10, they also fail to provide concrete and tangible results.
Accordingly, as claims 1 through 23 fail to transform physical subject matter
and fail to produce useful, concrete, and tangible results, they are abstract
ideas that are nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. Also, we have entered a new ground of
rejection of claims 1 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013