Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
transformation of data” “by a machine” “into a final share price, constitutes
a practical application of a mathematical algorithm” because “a final share
price [is] momentarily fixed for recording and reporting purposes and even
accepted and relied upon by regulatory authorities and in subsequent
trades.” 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601. Thus, while Diehr involved
the transformation of a tangible object – curing synthetic rubber – Federal
Circuit also regards the transformation of intangible subject matter to
similarly be eligible, so long as data or signals represent some real world
activity.
The Federal Circuit has never held or indicated that a process
involving no transformation can qualify as a “process” under § 101. In fact,
confronted with such claims, it has rejected them consistently. See In re
Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 294-295, 30 USPQ2d 1455, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(rejecting claims to method of evaluating a system that incorporated a
mathematical algorithm, where the only physical step was a data gathering
step that was not tied to the algorithm); In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 484,
203 USPQ 812, 815 (CCPA 1979); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 796, 215
USPQ 193, 198 (CCPA 1982); see also In re Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31
USPQ2d at 1556 (“Maucorps dealt with a business methodology for
deciding how salesmen should best handle respective customers and Meyer
involved a ‘system’ for aiding a neurologist in diagnosing patients. Clearly,
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013