Ex Parte Harris - Page 21

              Appeal 2007-0325                                                                                         
              Application 09/780,248                                                                                   

         1    Thus, “[d]espite the oft-quoted statement in the legislative history of the 1952                         
         2    Patent Act that Congress intended that statutory subject matter ‘include anything                        
         3    under the sun that is made by man,’[citation omitted], Congress did not so                               
         4    mandate.”  Id.                                                                                           
         5        In the case where a claim is for a process, as opposed to a product, “[t]he line                     
         6    between a patentable ‘process’ and an unpatentable ‘principle’ is not always clear.                      
         7    Both are ‘conception[s] of the mind, seen only by [their] effects when being                             
         8    executed or performed.’”  Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197                          
         9    (1978) (quoting Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 728 (1880)).                                          
        10        The Supreme Court has held that “[e]xcluded from such patent protection are                          
        11    laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”  Diamond v. Diehr, 450                           
        12    U.S. 175, 185, 209 USPQ 1, 7 (1981).  “An idea of itself is not patentable.’”                            
        13    Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185, 209 USPQ at 7 (quoting Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard,                          
        14    20 Wall. 498, 507, 22 L.Ed. 410 (1874); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67,                           
        15    175 USPQ 673, 675 (1972) (“[M]ental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts                        
        16    are not patentable.”); see also id. 409 U.S. at 71, 175 USPQ at 677 (“It is conceded                     
        17    that one may not patent an idea.”)).  In contrast, “[i]t is now commonplace that an                      
        18    application of a law of nature or mathematical formula [or abstract idea] to a                           
        19    known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”  Diehr,                          
        20    450 U.S. at 187, 209 USPQ at 8 (emphasis in original).                                                   
        21        Two instances in which our reviewing court affirmed the statutory nature of                          
        22    subject matter are pertinent to the above facts.  In Arrhythmia, the court held “the                     
        23    transformation of electrocardiograph signals … by a machine … constituted a                              
        24    practical application of an abstract idea” where “the number obtained is not a                           
        25    mathematical abstraction; it is a measure in microvolts of a specified heart activity,                   

                                                          21                                                           


Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013