Ex Parte TEDESCO et al - Page 11




          Appeal No. 2004-0403                                                        
          Application 09/100,684                                                      

          different state or thing."  See Gottschalk v. Benson,                       
          409 U.S. 63, 71, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) ("It is argued that a             
          process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or               
          apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a              
          'different state or thing.'  We do not hold that no process                 
          patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of            
          our prior precedents."); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. at 588 n.9,              
          198 USPQ at 196 n.9.  However, care should be taken in abandoning           
          or creating exceptions to a definition which has proven useful              
          over many years.  As far as we can determine, all cases involving           
          method claims after Gottschalk v. Benson can be explained by the            
          transformation of subject matter test.  The Federal Circuit                 
          stated that a "'physical transformation' ... is not an invariable           
          requirement, but merely one example of how a mathematical                   
          algorithm may bring about a useful application,"  AT&T v. Excel             
          Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 1358, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1452             
          (Fed. Cir. 1999).  However, AT&T involved a method of                       
          transforming data on a machine, not a disembodied method, and it            
          does not say that no physical transformation of subject matter is           
          required if no machine is claimed.  Transformation of data by a             
          machine is a special case.  It also appears that what was meant             
          in AT&T is that calculations on a machine can be statutory                  
          subject matter without "physical transformations" performed                 


                                       - 11 -                                         





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007