Appeal No. 1997-1416
Application 08/277,386
statutory process.
We agree with appellants that the invention as set forth
in the appealed claims represents statutory subject matter.
As the Federal Circuit noted in State Street, supra, the focus
should be on the practical utility of the claimed subject
matter. In our view, a method being run on a computer
inherently has practical utility and represents more than a
mere abstract idea. An abstract idea is no longer abstract
when it becomes tied to implementation on a computer. As long
as this computer-implemented process satisfies other
conditions of Title 35, it is properly the subject of patent
protection. Therefore, we hold that the appealed claims
before us, which require the presence of a computer to
implement the process, are directed to a useful invention
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We now consider the rejection of all the appealed claims
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. With respect
to claim 17, the examiner asserts that the term borrowing
lacks meaning as used in the claim. Additionally, the
examiner finds the phrases “value of the first most
significant byte” and “value of the second most significant
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007