Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
is directed to more than just the mathematical algorithms
required to perform the claimed method. Appellant has
correctly argued (Brief, pages 6 and 7) that:
Indeed, as pointed out above, the application of the
pseudocompressibility equations to a grid model to
solve a fluid flow problem is known in the art. It
is submitted that Appellant is only claiming the use
of the pseudocompressibility equations in
combination with the above described first two
process steps. Thus, it is submitted that the
claims do not seek to preempt a mathematical
algorithm per se. Instead, the instant claims are
analogous to those upheld in Diamond v. Diehr,
wherein the Court stated that the applicants “do not
seek to patent a mathematical formula . . . they
seek only to foreclose from others the use of that
equation in conjunction with all of the other steps
in their claimed process”. 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981).
Appellant’s claimed method is similarly limited in
that the mathematical algorithm recited is only
applicable in conjunction with all of the other
process steps.
We agree. “[A] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses
a mathematical formula, computer program or digital computer.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981). In
summary, the nonstatutory rejection is reversed because we
disagree with the examiner’s conclusion that the claimed
method is “without any limitation to a practical
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007