Ex Parte VALENTINE - Page 27




         Appeal No. 2002-0652                                                        
         Application No. 08/465,072                                                  


         constitute "manufactures" (and hence "products") because the                
         signals are physical things made by the disclosed circuits.                 
              The three product classes of statutory subject matter under            
         35 U.S.C. § 101 (machine, manufacture, and composition of matter)           
         have traditionally required physical structure or matter.  While            
         the specification discloses things, such as computers, memory               
         chips, wires, etc., which are products, the claim language does             
         not read on these things.  No tangible physical structure is made           
         in response to information as recited in the claims.  We also               
         disagree with the argument that "signals" are a "manufacture" and           
         hence a product.  A signal, while physical in the sense that it             
         can be measured, does not have a tangible physical structure and            
         does not fall within any of the statutory categories.   See In re           
         Bonczyk, No. 01-1061 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2001) (unpublished)                 
         ("fabricated energy structure" does not correspond to any                   
         statutory category of subject matter and it is unnecessary to               
         reach the alternate ground of affirmance that the subject matter            
         lacks practical utility).  A "composition of matter" "covers all            
         compositions of two or more substances and includes all composite           
         articles, whether they be results of chemical union, or of                  
         mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or            
         solids."  Shell Development Co. v. Watson , 149 F. Supp. 279, 280,          
         113 USPQ 265, 266 (D.D.C. 1957), aff'd, 252 F.2d 861, 116 USPQ              

                                         27                                          





Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007