Appeal No. 2006-1607
Application 10/062,894
modern parlance, electrical circuits and devices, such as computers, are referred to as machines.
The signal of claim 1 has no concrete tangible physical structure, and does not itself perform any
functions. Therefore, a signal does not fit within the definition of a "machine."
A "manufacture" and a "composition of matter" are defined in Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
447 U.S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 196-97 (1980):
[T]his Court has read the term "manufacture" in accordance with its dictionary definition
to mean "the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to
these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor
or by machinery." American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 (1931).
Similarly, "composition of matter" has been construed consistent with common usage to
include "all compositions of two or more substances and ... 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 (D.C. 1957) (citing 1 A. Deller, Walker on Patents § 14, p. 55 (1st ed. 1937).
[Parallel citations omitted.]
The signal is not composed of matter and is clearly not a "composition of matter."
A "manufacture" is the residual category for products. 1 Chisum, Patents § 1.02[3]
(2004) (citing W. Robinson, The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions 270 (1890)). If a signal
falls within any category of § 101, it must fall within this category. The definition of
"manufacture" from Diamond v. Chakrabarty requires a tangible article prepared from materials.
"Tangible" refers to something that is discernible by touch. The other cases dealing with
manufactures also require a tangible physical article. The CCPA held in In re Hruby,
373 F.2d 997, 153 USPQ 61 (CCPA 1967) that there was no distinction between the meaning of
"manufacture" in § 101 and "article of manufacture" in § 171 for designs. The issue in Hruby
was whether that portion of a water fountain which is composed entirely of water in motion was
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007