Appeal No. 95-0323
Application 08/051,928
“Examination Guidelines for Computer-Implemented Inventions.”
On remand, the examiner determined that the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 101 was still proper, and the case is now before us
for decision on the merits.
The examiner’s rejection applies the two-step test which
is now commonly referred to as the Freeman-Walter-Abele test.
See
In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1978) as
modified by In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (CCPA
1980). The test has been thus articulated:
First, the claim is analyzed to
determine whether a mathematical
algorithm is directly or indirectly
recited. Next, if a mathematical
algorithm is found, the claim as a
whole is further analyzed to determine
whether the algorithm is “applied in
any manner to physical elements or
process steps,” and, if it is, it
“passes muster under § 101.”
In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 915, 214 USPQ 673, 675-76 (CCPA
1982)
(citing In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982)).
The examiner’s application of the Freeman-Walter-Abele test
led the examiner to conclude that claims 1-10 were directed to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007