Ex Parte Jakobsson - Page 14

              Appeal 2006-2107                                                                     
              Application 09/969,833                                                               
              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 relied upon by regulatory authorities and in subsequent trades.”        
              149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601.  Thus, while Diehr involved the                 
              transformation of a tangible object – curing synthetic rubber – Federal              
              Circuit also regards the transformation of intangible subject matter to              
              similarly be eligible, so long as data or signals represent some real world          
              activity.                                                                            
                    The Federal Circuit has never held or indicated that a non-machine             
              implemented process involving no transformation can qualify as a “process”           
              under § 101.  In fact, confronted with such claims, it has rejected them             
              consistently.  See In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 294-295, 30 USPQ2d 1455,             
              1458 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837, 12 USPQ2d 1824,               
              1826 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (rejecting claims to method of evaluating a system             
              that incorporated a mathematical algorithm, where the only physical step             
              was a data gathering step that was not tied to the algorithm); In re Maucorps,       
              609 F.2d 481, 484, 203 USPQ 812, 815 (CCPA 1979); In re Meyer, 688                   
              F.2d 789, 796, 215 USPQ 193, 198 (CCPA 1982); see also In re Alappat, 33             
              F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1556 (“Maucorps dealt with a business                     
              methodology for deciding how salesmen should best handle respective                  

                                                14                                                 

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013