Appeal No. 2001-2627
Application No. 09/472,658
The question of whether a claim encompasses statutory
subject matter should not focus on which of the four
categories of subject matter a claim is directed to
. . . but rather on the essential characteristics of the
subject matter, in particular, its practical utility.
The Federal court further states in In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1359, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994) states that:
As the Supreme Court has made clear, "[a]n idea of
itself is not patentable," Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v.
Howard, 20 U.S. (1 Wall.) 498, 507 (1874); taking
several abstract ideas and manipulating them together
adds nothing to the basic equation.
Thus, the question for us is whether claim 50 is directed to
subject matter having practical utility or covers nothing more
than an abstract idea.
We note that Appellant's claim 50 recites "[a]n embodiment
of an incremental savings agreement comprising a parties
component and an incremental savings authorization source
component and defining covered transaction . . . ." We agree
with the Appellant that the claim is directed to a legal idea.
However, we fail to find that the claim is directed to subject
matter which has a practical utility but instead is just simply
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007