Appeal No. 97-1182
Application No. 08/150,371
appellant desired to have the claim construed to include some
practical application of the recited algorithm or a physical
structure, appellant could easily have presented or amended
the claims to do so. We find nothing within claims 1, 2, 5
and 17 which would take the claims out of the mathematical
algorithm exception to statutory classes of invention recited
in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Appellant does recite, at the end of claim 1, that the
recited "adding and subtracting" steps are carried out "with
an adding/subtracting circuit." While one might argue that
the recitation of such "structure" would make the subject
matter as a whole statutory, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
101, we do not so hold. In our view, such a limitation
amounts to no more than a gratuitous recitation of a general
circuit for the purpose of circumventing the rejection under
35 U.S.C. 101 and amounts to no more than an attempt to exalt
form over substance. The mere recitation of "an
adding/subtracting circuit" adds nothing to the claimed
subject matter because the claimed method already recites
"performing adding and subtracting steps." Thus, anything
that would perform this function may be characterized,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007