Appeal No. 2004-0403
Application 09/100,684
externally to the machine, such as using the calculated results
to control a system.
Claims 22-26 and 28-30 recite steps for acquiring an
individual as a customer and do not transform any physical
subject matter, tangible (matter) or intangible (energy), into a
different state or thing and, therefore, do not fall within the
definition of a statutory "process" or within the meaning of
"technology." The claimed steps can be performed manually by a
human. Although a statutory "process" under § 101 does not have
to be performed by a machine, there must be a transformation of
physical subject matter from one state to another, e.g., a step
of "mixing" two chemicals transforms two separate chemicals into
a manufacture or a composition of matter, regardless of whether
it is performed by a human or a machine. Here there is no
transformation of physical subject matter. Thus, claims 22-26
and 28-30 are directed to nonstatutory subject matter as not
meeting the definition of a "process" under § 101.
"An idea of itself is not patentable, but a new device by
which it may be made practically useful is." Rubber-Tip Pencil
Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. 498, 507 (1874). Abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable as they are the basic tools of
scientific and technological work, but a "practical application"
of the concept to produce a "useful" result is patentable. The
"abstract idea" exception refers to disembodied plans, schemes,
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007