Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
arguably yield a “useful, concrete, and tangible result” is not necessarily
statutory subject matter.
Specifically, the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test first
appeared in Alappat, which states: “This [claimed invention] is not a
disembodied mathematical concept which may be characterized as an
‘abstract idea,’ but rather a specific machine to produce a useful, concrete,
and tangible result.” Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557. The
court in Alappat thus devised a standard to partition patentable inventions
using mathematical algorithms from claims for disembodied mathematical
concepts. State Street also involved claims to a machine employing a
mathematical algorithm, but in this instance for managing a mutual fund
investment portfolio. Finding the claim to be valid under § 101, State Street
held that “transformation of data … by a machine through a series of
mathematical calculations into a final share price, constitutes a practical
application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it
produces ‘a useful, concrete and tangible result.’” State Street. at 1373, 47
USPQ2d at 1601. Likewise, AT&T also ties this test to applications of
mathematical algorithms: “Because the claimed process applies the Boolean
principle to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result without pre-
empting other uses of the mathematical principle, on its face the claimed
process comfortably falls within the scope of § 101.” AT&T, 172 F.3d at
1358, 50 USPQ2d at 1452; see also id. at 1361, 50 USPQ2d at 1453
(concluding that “the focus is understood to be not on whether there is a
mathematical algorithm at work, but on whether the algorithm-containing
invention, as a whole, produces a tangible, useful result.”).
26
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013