Appeal No. 2000-2225
Application 08/998,617
briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that claims 1-10 are directed to statutory subject matter
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we reverse.
The examiner’s rejection states that in order for a
computer-related process to be statutory, the claims must include
either a step that results in a physical transformation outside
the computer or a limitation to a practical application, or the
claims must incorporate any physical structure, citing In re
Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) [final rejection,
page 2].
Appellant argues that the Freeman-Walter-Abele test is
not the proper test to determine whether computer-related
inventions are statutory subject matter, citing State Street Bank
& Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368,
1375, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert denied. 525
U.S. 1093 (1999). Appellant argues that a mathematical algorithm
is patentable as long as it is not an abstract idea. According
to appellant, the only relevant and dispositive inquiry is
whether the claimed invention is directed to something useful,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007