Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
Federal Circuit regards the transformation of intangible subject matter to be
such a useful, tangible, and concrete result, so long as data or signals
represent some real world activity. However, we do not find data or signals
in claim 1 which represent a real world activity such as found in Arrhythmia,
Alappat, or State Street.
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant’s claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-
56, which produce a rearrangement of program data, fail to apply their
abstract ideas to produce a useful and concrete and tangible result. Thus,
claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56 fall outside the scope of § 101.
(3)
Rejection of claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent
method claim 1, we conclude the system of independent claim 9 covers
(“preempts”) every substantial practical application of the abstract idea. We
conclude that the claim is so broad that it is directed to the “abstract idea”
itself, rather than a practical implementation of the concept. Thus, the
claimed process falls outside the scope of § 101.
Additionally, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 1, we conclude the method of claim 55 does not apply its abstract idea
to produce a useful, concrete, tangible result.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 40, 41, 43-54, and 56 merely
require that anyone or anything reorder or rearrange the claimed components
30
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013