Ex Parte George - Page 10

            Appeal Number: 2007-0133                                                                         
            Application Number: 10/223,466                                                                   

            the product of any transformation as understood in the case law of useful arts.                  
            Accordingly, the claims fail to meet any of the conditions set forth in the case law             
            of either the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit.                                              

                   ii) Appellant’s claims appear to be unpatentable under section 101 because                
            they seek to patent an abstract idea.                                                            
                   Principles of law defining abstract idea                                                  
                   The Supreme Court has held that “[e]xcluded from such patent protection                   
            are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”  Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185.             
            “An idea of itself is not patentable.”  Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185 (quoting Rubber-Tip               
            Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507, 22 L.Ed. 410 (1874); Benson, 409 U.S.                   
            at 67 (“[M]ental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.”);            
            see also id. at 71 (“It is conceded that one may not patent an idea.”).  In contrast,            
            “[i]t is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical                  
            formula [or abstract idea] to a known structure or process may well be deserving of              
            patent protection.”  Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187 (emphasis in original).                              
                   Clever claim drafting cannot circumvent these principles.  That is, even                  
            when a claim appears to apply an idea or concept as part of a seemingly patentable               
            process, one must ensure that it does not in reality seek patent protection for that             
            idea in the abstract.  Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191.  Similarly, one cannot patent a process           
            that comprises “every substantial practical application” of an abstract idea, because            
            such a patent “in practical effect would be a patent on the [abstract idea] itself.”             
            Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72.1  Such limitations on process patents are important                   
                                                                                                            
            1 The observation in State Street that “[w]hether the patent’s claims are too broad              
            to be patentable is not to be judged under § 101, but rather under §§ 102, 103, and              
            112” did not, nor could it, overrule the Supreme Court’s pre-emption doctrine.  See              

                                                     10                                                      

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013