Appeal No. 97-1182
Application No. 08/150,371
of the mathematical manipulation of one matrix to result in
another matrix.
Appellant argues [brief - page 17] that the claimed
process is the process by which a circuit operates, such as
the claimed matrix multiplying circuit, and, therefore, the
process must also be directed to statutory subject matter.
However, the circuitry, or apparatus, claims, were not
rejected by the examiner (and, accordingly, are not before us
on 35 U.S.C. 101 grounds), the examiner apparently concluding
that such claims, being directed to physical structure, are
not subject to a rejection based on
35 U.S.C. 101 on nonstatutory grounds. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 17
are not directed to any such structure or to any practical
application of the claimed algorithm.
One might argue that the term "vector data signal"
implies some practical application because a "signal" must
evolve from some physical manifestation or that a "vector" is
indicative, somehow, of a physical signal. However, in our
view, as broadly claimed, a "signal" could be nothing more
than input data and a "vector" implies nothing more than a
mathematical value having some magnitude and direction. Had
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007