Appeal No. 97-1182
Application No. 08/150,371
that is being operated upon, it is clear that the claimed
subject matter is directed to a practical application of the
algorithm which operates on the image signal. The algorithm
produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result" - the
transformation of an image signal. Accordingly, the subject
matter recited in claims 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 19 and 20 is
statutory, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. 101. See State Street Bank & Trust Co., v.
Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ
2d, 1596, 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, when we analyze
claims 1, 2, 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101, we reach a
different result.
Claim 1 does not recite any image signal but, rather,
only an "input vector data signal." One could argue that
reference to the disclosure would indicate that this signal is
intended to be an "image" signal. However, reference to the
instant claims appears to tell a different story. Clearly,
since dependent claim 3 adds the further limitation that the
"input vector signal comprises an image signal," appellant
intends the recitation of a mere "input vector data signal" in
independent claim 1 to have a much broader meaning. That
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007