Ex Parte Shealy - Page 23

            Appeal 2006-1601                                                                            
            Application 09/828,579                                                                      

                  The Supreme Court, however, presumably concerned about barring patents                
            for future, unforeseeable technologies, declined to rule on whether its precedent           
            foreclosed any other possible avenues for a method claim to qualify as a section            
            101 process:  “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.”  Benson, 409 U.S. at 71, 175            
            USPQ 676.  Rather than rule on this question in Benson and Flook, the Supreme               
            Court decided those cases based on the abstract idea exception to patentability.            
            Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676-77; Flook, 437 U.S. at 594-95, 198               
            USPQ at 199-200.                                                                            
                  Since Diehr, the Federal Circuit has reviewed several computer technology             
            cases, and in acknowledgment of the innovations occurring in this technological             
            field, identified a third category of method claims that qualify as a “process.”            
            Extrapolating from the Supreme Court’s “transformation and reduction of an                  
            article” test, the Federal Circuit has held that transformation of intangible subject       
            matter (i.e., data or signals) may also qualify as a § 101 process.   See, e.g., State      
            St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47                 
            USPQ2d 1596, 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  Responding to the argument that process                
            claims must recite a “physical transformation,” the Federal Circuit in AT&T ruled           
            that “physical transformation” “is not an invariable requirement, but merely one            
            example of how a mathematical algorithm may bring about a useful application.”              
            AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 1358, 50 USPQ2d                    
            1447, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  Quoting the Supreme Court’s language, “e.g.,                  
                                                                                                        
            imagine how that alone would satisfy the requirements of § 101 and convert an               
            otherwise ineligible claim into an eligible one.                                            
                                                  23                                                    

Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013