Appeal 2006-2107
Application 09/969,833
explicitly recited in § 101.” (Br. 9). Appellant also repeats the second
argument of claim 1. Appellant argues “useful, concrete and tangible results
are indeed produced” which are “in the form of one or more output values of
a one-way chain” and “[which] may be used as passwords.” (Br. 9).
With respect to independent machine-readable medium claim 21,
Appellant repeats the two arguments of claim 20. First, Appellant argues the
claim at issue is directed to “a type of manufacture, one of the statutory
categories explicitly recited in § 101.” (Br. 9). Second, Appellant argues
“useful, concrete and tangible results are indeed produced” which are “in the
form of one or more output values of a one-way chain” and “[which] may be
used as passwords.” (Br. 9).
Finally with respect to independent method claim 22, Appellant
repeats the second argument of claims 20 and 21. Appellant argues “useful,
concrete and tangible results are indeed produced” which are “in the form of
one or more output values of a one-way chain” and “[which] may be used as
passwords.” (Br. 10).
(4)
Reading the Supreme Court’s and Federal Circuit’s Precedents Together,
A Section 101 “Process” Has Always Transformed Subject Matter,
Whether Tangible or Intangible, Or Has Been a Process
That Involved The Other Three Statutory Categories
The scope of patentable subject matter under section 101 is broad, but
not infinitely broad. “Congress included in patentable subject matter only
those things that qualify as ‘any … process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any … improvement thereof….’” In re
Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1358, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 101) (emphasis added). Thus, “[d]espite the oft-quoted
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013