Appeal No. 2006-2765
Application No. 10/372,160
interpretation of the claim limitations includes
such abstractions. Therefore, the claims are
impermissibly abstract under 35 U.S.C. 101
doctrine.
Appellants argue inter alia (brief, page 7) that “the claimed invention
determines an optimal solution to complex and oftentimes intractable
problems (e.g., modeled as mathematical functions) vis-à-vis a quantum
mechanical tunneling technique (QMTT) and outputs the optimal solution to
the problem via a monitor, printer and/or other output device and thus,
provides a concrete, tangible and useful result (e.g., the displayed, printed,
etc., optimal solution to the problem).”
In response, the examiner indicates (answer, page 21) that:
A first distinction in the present case is that
the claimed invention takes as an input “a
problem” or “a function,” which is purely abstract
and mathematical in nature and further having no
real-world application. Similarly, the output is
merely an abstract solution to the abstract
“problem.” Since the initial problem has no real-
world application, the solution similarly has none.
In particular, merely finding the global minimum
of some problem or function, where that solution is
not applied to a real-world problem, is not
sufficient to provide a concrete, useful, and
tangible result. Regardless of the output means
used to provide this abstract solution - whether it
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013