Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
containing data and methods for performing operations on the
data. Although the specification states that the object is
stored in mass storage or a computer memory, this is not an
express limitation of the claims. Implied limitations are not to
be read into the claims. An "object" per se has no physical
substance and does not fit within any of the statutory classes of
"process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" of
§ 101 because it does not recite steps or any physical structure.
See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (data structure per se of claim 6 is not in one
of the categories of § 101). Furthermore, an "object" per se is
an "abstract idea" because it has no concrete physical
instantiation. We hold that the subject matter of claims 42-47
is nonstatutory because it does not fit within any of the
statutory categories and because it falls within the abstract
idea exception. If the claims were amended to recite that the
object was stored in a physical medium, this would overcome the
rejection because of the statutory nature of the medium and the
fact that the object information is functional when used in a
computer. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (memory containing a stored data structure was
statutory subject matter); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 2106 IV.B.1 (distinguishing between "functional descriptive
material" and "nonfunctional descriptive material").
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007