Ex Parte George - Page 14

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

            specifically linked this test to inventions that perform “a series of mathematical               
            calculations” to transform data.  Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently noted that the            
            test was specifically devised to handle eligibility issues for claims encompassing               
            mathematical algorithms, thereby suggesting that it is not a general test for                    
            eligibility.  See NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1324 (Fed.               
            Cir. 2005) (“The requirement that a process transform data and produce a ‘tangible               
            result’ was a standard devised to prevent patenting of mathematical abstractions”                
            (citing AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1359) (emphasis added)).  Accordingly, the best reading                
            of the precedent may limit that test to machines and machine-implemented                         
            methods using mathematical algorithms to transform data, rather than embracing it                
            as a general test for eligibility.                                                               
                   Analysis of why the useful, concrete, and tangible result test does not apply             
            and even if it did, the claims nevertheless do not meet that test                                
                   Accordingly, our understanding of the precedents at present is:  Any                      
            computer program claimed as a machine implementing the program (Alappat, State                   
            Street) or as a method of a machine implementing the program (AT&T), is                          
            patentable if it transforms data and achieves a useful, concrete and tangible result             
            (State Street, AT&T).  Exceptions occur when the invention in actuality pre-empts                
            an abstract idea, as in a mathematical algorithm (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72).                    
            Because Appellant’s claims do not entail a machine implementing a mathematical                   
            formula to transform data, the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test is                   
            irrelevant to considering the eligibility of Appellant’s claims.                                 
                   Furthermore, even if the concrete, and tangible result test were applied, the             
            claims do not meet the test as they are directed to printed matter.  As discussed                
            supra independent claims 1 and 35 are directed to methods of drawing a chart.   A                
            chart is no more than printed matter.  “[P]rinted matter by itself is not patentable             

                                                     14                                                      

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013