Ex Parte Shealy - Page 24

            Appeal 2006-1601                                                                            
            Application 09/828,579                                                                      

            transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing” from Diehr, the          
            AT&T court noted the usage of “e.g.” “denotes an example, not an exclusive                  
            requirement.”  Id. at 1359, 50 USPQ2d at 1452.  AT&T went on to cite the                    
            transformation of intangible data signals in the method claim of Arrhythmia                 
            Research Technology Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053, 1059, 22 USPQ2d                 
            1033, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1992), as an example that qualifies as a § 101 “process” in           
            addition to the Supreme Court’s test.  See id. at 1359, 50 USPQ2d at 1452.                  
                  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has consistently used its own “data                  
            transformation” test in assessing the eligibility of various machine-implemented            
            claims.  In Alappat, the court held that “data, transformed by a machine” “to               
            produce a smooth waveform display” “constituted a practical application of an               
            abstract idea.”  State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601. Specifically,           
            the court in Alappat stated that the claimed invention as a whole was directed to a         
            machine for “converting discrete waveform data samples into anti-aliased pixel              
            illumination intensity data to be displayed on a display means.” 33 F.3d 1526,              
            1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).  In Arrhythmia, the court            
            held “the transformation of electrocardiograph signals” “by a machine”                      
            “constituted a practical application of an abstract idea.”  State Street, 149 F.3d at       
            1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601.   Specifically, the court in Arrhythmia stated “the                
            number obtained is not a mathematical abstraction; it is a measure in microvolts of         
            a specified heart activity, an indicator of the risk of ventricular tachycardia.” 958       
            F.2d at 1062, 22 USPQ2d at 1039.  Likewise, in State Street, the court held that            
            “the transformation of data” “by a machine” “into a final share price, constitutes a        
            practical application of a mathematical algorithm” because “a final share price [is]        
            momentarily fixed for recording and reporting purposes and even accepted and                


                                                  24                                                    

Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013