Ex Parte Borton - Page 9

           Appeal 2007-1443                                                                       
           Application 09/813,636                                                                 

       1   the idea.  In this case, the claimed methods do not require any machine or             
       2   apparatus to perform the steps and do not operate to physically transform any          
       3   material to a different state or thing, and are therefore not processes within the     
       4   meaning of the patent statutes.  As such, they do not fall within any of the statutory 
       5   categories of patentable subject matter under § 101.                                   
       6      The Appellant argues that the claims are statutory because they produce a           
       7   useful result, i.e., “generating a forward-looking report” (Br. 9).  Our reviewing     
       8   court has applied the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test only to claims that 
       9   are directed to machine implementation of mathematical algorithms, and we find         
       10  no precedent requiring us to extend it to non-machine implemented methods in this      
       11  case.  See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir.          
       12  1994) (“This [claimed invention] is not a disembodied mathematical concept             
       13  which may be characterized as an ‘abstract idea,’ but rather a specific machine to     
       14  produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result”); State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47  
       15  USPQ2d at 1601 (holding “transformation of data … by a practical application of a      
       16  mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it produces ‘a useful,        
       17  concrete and tangible result.’”); and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.,        
       18  172 F.3d 1352, 1358, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Because the               
       19  claimed process applies the Boolean principle to produce a useful, concrete, and       
       20  tangible result without pre-empting other uses of the mathematical principle, on its   
       21  face the claimed process comfortably falls within the scope of § 101.”                 
       22     Therefore, all of the claims are directed toward ineligible subject matter.         
       23  Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 and 19-22 rejected      
       24  under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.                     
       25                                                                                         

                                                9                                                 


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013