Ex Parte Shealy - Page 22

            Appeal 2006-1601                                                                            
            Application 09/828,579                                                                      

            Thus, “[d]espite the oft-quoted statement in the legislative history of the 1952            
            Patent Act that Congress intended that statutory subject matter ‘include anything           
            under the sun that is made by man,’[citation omitted], Congress did not so                  
            mandate.”  Id.                                                                              
                  In the case where a claim is for a process, as opposed to a product, “[t]he           
            line between a patentable ‘process’ and an unpatentable ‘principle’ is not always           
            clear.  Both are ‘conception[s] of the mind, seen only by [their] effects when being        
            executed or performed.”  Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 198              
            (1978) (quoting Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 728 (1880)).  “The holding               
            that the discovery of [Benson’s] method could not be patented as a ‘process’                
            forecloses a purely literal reading of § 101.”  Flook, 437 U.S. at 589, 198 USPQ at         
            197.  “[W]hen a claim containing [an abstract idea] implements or applies that              
            [idea] in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a         
            function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or              
            reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the            
            requirements of § 101.”  Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192, 209 USPQ 1, 10                
            (1981); see also Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 64, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)            
            (“Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the         
            clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular               
            machines.”).5                                                                               
                                                                                                       
            5     The principal exception to this rule, as explained infra, is when the machine-        
            implemented method merely manipulates abstractions.  See Benson, 409 U.S. at                
            71-72, 175 USPQ at 676-77.  In addition, merely attaching a machine to an                   
            otherwise ineligible method may not be sufficient and would depend on how the               
            machine actually implemented the recited steps.  For example, if a nonstatutory             
            claim were amended so that a recited step of registering a customer was performed           
            by entering data into a computer rather than using a sign-up sheet, it is hard to           
                                                  22                                                    

Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013