Appeal No. 95-2552
Application 07/886,228
Method claim 27 falls within the § 101 class of a "process." "[A] series of steps is a 'process'
within § 101 unless it falls within a judicially determined category of nonstatutory subject matter
exceptions." In re Sarkar, 588 F.2d 1330, 1333, 200 USPQ 132, 137 (CCPA 1978). Claim 27 is
directed to deploying a constellation of artificial satellites to produce a particular physical configuration
and characteristics and involves the application of physical force to physical objects to produce a
man-made manufacture. The method of claim 27 is not an abstract idea like a mathematical algorithm.
Accordingly, method claim 27 is considered statutory subject matter under § 101 within the class of a
"process."
Appellant points to patents to Grisham, U.S. Patent 3,243,706, issued March 29, 1966, Draim,
U.S. Patent 4,809,935, issued March 7, 1989, and Draim, U.S. Patent 4,854,527, issued August 8, 1989,
as evidence that the policy of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been to consider such systems
and methods as statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Brief, pages 12-13). "The allowance
of claims in other applications and other patents is not controlling on our consideration of this case."
Ex parte Bondiou, 132 USPQ 356, 358 (Bd. App. 1961); In re Riddle, 438 F.2d 618, 620,
169 USPQ 45, 47 (CCPA 1971) ("'two wrongs cannot make a right'"). Nevertheless, our decision is
consistent with these patents.
The examiner states (Examiner's Answer, page 3):
It is known that any vessel in space would be governed by a grant under 35 USC 194
[sic, 105?]. However, in the instant claimed [sic, claims] the spacecraft itself or its control is not
the subject of the claimed invention, but what is claimed, is merely the "system" of satellites in
particular orbits about the Earth.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007