Appeal No. 97-1182
Application No. 08/150,371
broader interpretation does not appear to dictate that the
"input vector signal" be a physical signal of any sort.
Thus, while appellant may argue [brief - page 16] that
claim 1 is directed to a method in which a signal is
transformed from one state to a second state, more
specifically, that an input vector signal is transformed into
an output vector signal, citing Arrythmia Research Technology,
Inc. v. Corazonix Corporation,
958 F.2d 1053, 1059, 22 USPQ2d 1033, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1992) as
authority for the statutory nature of such a claim, we
disagree. The signal in Arrythmia was, indeed, representative
of a physical signal - signals related to the functioning of a
human heart. By contrast, the general recitation of an "input
vector data signal" in instant claim 1 is not tied, by any
claim language, to any specific physical phenomena or to any
practical application of such a signal.
Claim 1 merely calls for inputting a signal, albeit a
"vector data signal" into a matrix multiplying circuit which
then mathematically manipulates that signal to result in a
mathematical matrix. There is no indication in the claim of
any connection to a physical thing or a practical application
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007