Appeal No. 2002-0308
Application No. 09/106,784
specific method steps. Accordingly, we are dealing with a computer-implemented
process that is run on a machine. Machines and processes comprise, prima facie,
statutory subject matter as they are specifically mentioned in 35 U.S.C. §101 as classes
of invention which are patentable.
The process, or method, of the instant invention is a mathematical algorithm.
While a long line of cases affirm the concept that a claim directed to a mathematical
algorithm is a nonstatutory class of invention and is not included under 35 U.S.C. §101,
a “claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory
simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program or digital computer.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981). The question is whether
there is a practical application of this mathematical algorithm that achieves a useful,
concrete, and tangible result or whether the algorithm merely results in an abstract
number.
In the instant claimed invention, a collection of training data is collected, wherein
the training data are input values that are available to a model, together with desired
output values that the model is to predict. Then, a plurality of subordiniate models are
generated, these subordinate models together comprising an overall model. Finally, a
specification of at least one of the subordinate models generated is output and a
prediction is generated based on the at least one of the subordinate models generated.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007