Appeal No. 96-2552
Application 08/161,816
205 USPQ 397, 409 (CCPA 1980). It appears from the examiner's
arguments that the examiner did not afford any weight to the
physical aspects of the claims. Nevertheless, since we
reverse the rejection for other reasons, it is not necessary
to decide the case on this issue.
Third, the analysis that the claims do not recite a
"practical application having a physical transformation in the
industrial arts" ([Second] Sup. Examiner's Answer, page 1) has
been modified by State Street. The Federal Circuit noted that
a "practical application" was "a useful, concrete and tangible
result." State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at
1600-01. The Court further stated, id., 47 USPQ2d at 1601:
Today, we hold that the transformation of data,
representing discrete dollar amounts, by a machine
through a series of mathematical calculations into a
final share price, constitutes a practical application of
a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation,
because it produces "a useful, concrete and tangible
result"--a final share price momentarily fixed for
recording and reporting purposes and even accepted and
relied upon by regulatory authorities and in subsequent
trades.
Although this statement is made with respect to mathematical
calculations, it is manifestly intended to apply to the
analysis of other "abstract ideas." Thus, a "process" no
longer requires a physical transformation of something to a
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007