Appeal Number: 2007-0133
Application Number: 10/223,466
“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and
abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic
tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 67 [175 USPQ 673] (1972).
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1359-60, 74 USPQ2d
1398, 1417-18 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (concurring opinion, Judge Gajarsa).
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole must accomplish a practical
application. That is, it must produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result." State
Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373,
47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601-02 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The purpose of this requirement is to
limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of "real world"
value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or
concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research. See e.g.,
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96 (1966); In re
Ziegler 992, F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). A
process that consists solely of the manipulation of an abstract idea is not concrete
or tangible. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759
(Fed. Cir. 1994). See also In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 295, 30 USPQ2d 1455,
1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013