Appeal No. 2001-1911
Application No. 08/825,492
data format, whereas this reasoning is expanded upon in the
answer as characterizing the subject matter of this claim as
being directed merely to a data structure per se.
Ample precedent exists in our view to sustain this
rejection of the examiner. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185,
209 USPQ 1 (1981) identified three classes of subject matter that
do not qualify as section 101 statutory subject matter to
include: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.
Like the examiner, we consider the subject matter of independent
claim 21 as being directed to an abstract idea per se in the form
of a data structure. Essentially, In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354,
1361-62, 31 USPQ2d, 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994) held that a “data
structure” is not a machine or otherwise within the statutory
subject matter of section 101. More recently, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust Co.
v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d
1596, 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998), indicated in disfavoring an earlier
test used in determining patentable subject matter that “a
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter employing
a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007