Appeal 2006-2107
Application 09/969,833
(8)
Appellant’s Method Claims Fall Outside The Scope Of 35 U.S.C. § 101
Therefore, we conclude Appellant’s method claims are unpatentable
under section 101 because, while they nominally fall into a statutory
category, (i) they do not satisfy the “useful, concrete, and tangible result”
test, and (ii) they seek to patent an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-19 and 22
fall outside the scope of § 101.
(9)
Apparatus claim 20 Falls Outside The Scope Of 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant’s apparatus claim is nominally a machine; however, for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we conclude the
apparatus of claim 20 does not apply its abstract idea to produce a useful,
concrete, and tangible result. Thus, the claimed apparatus falls outside the
scope of § 101.
Additionally, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 1, we conclude the apparatus of claim 20 covers (“preempts”) every
substantial practical application of the abstract idea. We conclude that the
claim is so broad that it is directed to the “abstract idea” itself, rather than a
practical implementation of the concept.
(10)
Medium claim 21 Falls Outside The Scope Of 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant’s apparatus claim is nominally a manufacture; however, for
the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we conclude the
medium of claim 21 does not apply its abstract idea to produce a useful,
23
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013