Appeal No. 94-2926
Application No. 07/777,045
1368, 1373-74, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601-1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
that:
After Diehr and Chakrabarty, the Freeman-Walter-
Abele test has little, if any, applicability to
determining the presence of statutory subject
matter. As we pointed out in Alappat, 33 F.3d at
1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1557, application of the test
could be misleading, because a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter employing a
law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea
is patentable subject matter even though a law of
nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea would
not, by itself, be entitled to such protection. The
test determines the presence of, for example, an
algorithm. Under Benson, this may have been a
sufficient indicium of nonstatutory subject matter.
However, after Diehr and Alappat, the mere fact that
a claimed invention involves inputting numbers,
calculating numbers, outputting numbers, and storing
numbers, in and of itself, would not render it
nonstatutory subject matter, unless, of course, its
operation does not produce a "useful, concrete and
tangible result."
We agree with the examiner that the claimed invention
"solves a mathematical problem in the field of computational
fluid dynamics," and that the claimed invention is drawn to an
"abstract idea" (i.e., a mathematical algorithm). We do not,
however, agree with the examiner’s conclusion that the claimed
method is "without a claimed limitation to a practical
application." The claimed method uses the mathematical
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007