Ex Parte Shealy - Page 27

            Appeal 2006-1601                                                                            
            Application 09/828,579                                                                      

            ruled that methods without any transformation are eligible, and appears in                  
            Schrader to have rejected that proposition.                                                 
                  We believe that “process” should not be broadened so as to include any                
            method that may be deemed useful, such as Appellant’s future rate change claims.            
            The Supreme Court’s and Federal Circuit’s articulated eligibility tests keep the            
            interpretation of “process” in pari materia with the other three categories of              
            inventions – manufacture, machine, and composition of matter.  In other words,              
            interpreting “process” as either transforming subject matter or implemented by one          
            of the other three categories of inventions is rationally consistent with and               
            proportional to the types of inventions patented under the other categories.8  See          
            Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 722 (1880) (“where the result or effect is               
            produced by chemical action, by the operation or application of some element or             
            power of nature, or of one substance to another, such modes, methods, or                    
            operations are called processes.”); see also AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1356, 50 USPQ2d at           
            1450 (“any step-by-step process, be it electronic, chemical, or mechanical,                 
            involves an ‘algorithm’ in the broad sense of the term.”).  Accordingly, we do not          
            believe that the boundaries of “process” should be so expansive as to accommodate           
            all “useful” methods.                                                                       
                  Following Schrader, Appellant’s claims are unpatentable under section 101.            
            The claims are similar to those rejected in Schrader, while distinguishable from            
            Arrhythmia, Alappat, State Street, and AT&T.  The claims do not transform any               
            article to a different state or thing.  The future rate change produced by the claims,      
                                                                                                        
            8     We do not propose in this decision a comprehensive rule for defining                  
            patentable subject matter in all circumstances.  Rather, this decision illustrates that     
            Appellant’s claims fall outside the currently existing tests for eligibility and sees       
            no reason to expand the existing tests to cover Appellant’s claims.                         
                                                  27                                                    

Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013