Ex Parte Shealy - Page 32

            Appeal 2006-1601                                                                            
            Application 09/828,579                                                                      

            mathematical concept which may be characterized as an ‘abstract idea,’ but rather           
            a specific machine to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result.”  Alappat, 33        
            F.3d at 1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557.  The court in Alappat thus devised a standard to           
            partition patentable inventions using mathematical algorithms from claims for               
            disembodied mathematical concepts.  State Street also involved claims to a                  
            machine employing a mathematical algorithm, but in this instance for managing a             
            mutual fund investment portfolio.  Finding the claim to be valid under § 101, State         
            Street held that “transformation of data … by a machine through a series of                 
            mathematical calculations into a final share price, constitutes a practical                 
            application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it                
            produces ‘a useful, concrete and tangible result.’”  State Street at 1373, 47               
            USPQ2d at 1601.  Likewise, AT&T also ties this test to applications of                      
            mathematical algorithms:  “Because the claimed process applies the Boolean                  
            principle to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result without pre-empting            
            other uses of the mathematical principle, on its face the claimed process                   
            comfortably falls within the scope of § 101.”  AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358, 50                   
            USPQ2d at 1452; see also id. at 1361, 50 USPQ2d at 1453 (concluding that “the               
            focus is understood to be not on whether there is a mathematical algorithm at work,         
            but on whether the algorithm-containing invention, as a whole, produces a                   
            tangible, useful result.”).                                                                 
                  However, the Federal Circuit has never suggested that its “useful, concrete,          
            and tangible result” test was applicable outside the context of data transformation         
            using a mathematical algorithm.  Rather, the Federal Circuit has consistently and           
            specifically linked this test to inventions that perform “a series of mathematical          
            calculations” to transform data.  Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently noted that the       


                                                  32                                                    

Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013