Appeal No. 1999-2314
Application 08/739,200
As noted by appellants, it is the current view of the
court that unpatentable mathematical algorithms are identifiable
by showing that they are merely abstract ideas constituting
disembodied concepts or truths that are not “useful.” From a
practical standpoint, this means that to be patentable an
algorithm must be applied in a “useful” way. See State Street,
supra.
A necessary consideration for any analysis of whether a
claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter has to
include an analysis of what exactly is the claimed invention.
The claims on appeal before us all recite a computer-readable
medium which causes a computer to carry out a sequence of steps
which use measured empirical data to adjust the nodes and arcs of
a belief network to make the network more accurate. This
computer-readable medium would fall within the definition of
“functional descriptive material” as that term is used in the
MPEP § 2106 IV.B.1., because it imparts functionality when
employed as a computer component. The MPEP states there that
“[w]hen functional descriptive material is recorded on some
computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally
interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases
since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007