Appeal No. 1998-2848 Application 08/398,862 Appellant did not file a reply brief to challenge these new reasons by the Examiner. See 37 CFR § 1.193(b) (appellant may file a reply brief addressing new points of arguments). Nevertheless, we do not affirm the rejection pro forma. "[A] series of steps is a 'process' within § 101 unless it falls within a judicially determined category of nonstatutory subject matter exceptions." In re Sarkar, 588 F.2d 1330, 1333, 200 USPQ 132, 137 (CCPA 1978). The recognized exceptions are for "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1542, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)). The key to statutory subject matter is whether the claimed subject matter is directed to a "practical application," which the Federal Circuit has said is "a useful, concrete and tangible result." State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1375, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, a "process" no longer requires a physical transformation of something to a different state or thing (although such transformations fall within the so-called "safe harbors" of the Guidelines and MPEP § IV.B.2.(b)(i)). - 13 -Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007