Ex Parte Colosky - Page 8





               Appeal No. 2006-2240                                                                                               
               Application No. 10/232,015                                                                                         

                      We conclude that the signal of claim 36 is nonstatutory subject matter because (1) it is an                 
               abstract idea, and (2) it does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of subject matter              
               under 35 U.S.C. § 101.                                                                                             
                              (1) Abstract idea.                                                                                  
                      One of the three judicially recognized exceptions is an "abstract idea."  Diamond v.                        
               Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185, 209 USPQ 1, 7 (1981).  The signal of claims 36 has no physical                           
               attributes other than being embodied in a carrier wave.  The limitations concerning the code                       
               within the signal are interpreted as reciting the type of information contained in the signal, and                 
               not any particular physical properties, such as an electrical signal.  Accordingly, the signal of                  
               claims 36 is nonstatutory subject matter as an "abstract idea."                                                    
                              (2) Not within a § 101 category.                                                                    
                      The categories of statutory subject matter are "process, machine, manufacture, or                           
               composition of matter."  35 U.S.C. § 101.  "[N]o patent is available for a discovery, however                      
               useful, novel, and nonobvious, unless it falls within one of the express categories of patentable                  
               subject matter of 35 U.S.C. § 101."  Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 483,                           
               181 USPQ 673, 679 (1974).                                                                                          
                      A "process" is a series of acts and, since claim 36 recites a signal, which contains code to                
               cause a series of acts and does not actually recite performance of the acts, it is not a process.                  
                      The three product classes of machine, manufacture, and composition of matter have                           
               traditionally required physical structure or substance.  "The term machine includes every                          
               mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function                         
               and produce a certain effect or result."  Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267 (1854); see also                     
               Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570 (1863) (a machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts or of                  
               certain devices and combinations of devices).  In modern parlance, electrical circuits and                         
               devices, such as computers, are referred to as machines.  The signal of claim 36 has no concrete                   
               tangible physical structure, and does not itself perform any functions that produce useful,                        

                                                                8                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007