Appeal No. 1997-1416
Application 08/277,386
We consider first the rejection of claims 17-29 and 45-57
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter in the form of a mathematical algorithm. In
the original examiner’s answer, this rejection was made using
the Freeman-Walter-Abele test. See In re Freeman, 573 F.2d
1237, 197 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1978) as modified by In re Walter,
618 F.2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1980) and In re Abele, 684
F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982). This case was remanded to
the examiner by the Board to consider the effect on this
appeal by the decisions in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 47 USPQ2d 1596
(Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. (1999) and AT&T
Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 50 USPQ2d
1447 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Upon remand and consideration of these
decisions, the examiner determined that the rejection was
still appropriate [supplemental answer].
More particularly, the examiner finds the mathematical
algorithm of the claimed invention to be nothing more than an
abstract idea with no practical application or useful result.
Appellants argue that a series of specific operational steps
to be performed on or with the aid of a computer is a
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007