Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 an indicator of the risk of ventricular tachycardia.” Arrhythmia Research Tech. v.
2 Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053, 1060, 22 USPQ2d 1033, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
3 Likewise, in State Street, the court held that “the transformation of data … by a
4 machine … into a final share price, constitutes a practical application of a
5 mathematical algorithm … a final share price momentarily fixed for recording and
6 reporting purposes and even accepted and relied upon by regulatory authorities and
7 in subsequent trades.” State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group Inc.,
8 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
9 In contrast, claims 5-7 and 28-32 accept bids, determine who the bidders are,
10 and define rules. “[T]there is nothing physical about bids per se. Thus, the
11 grouping or regrouping of bids cannot constitute a physical change, effect, or
12 result.” In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 293-94, 30 USPQ2d 1455, 1458 (Fed. Cir.
13 1994). Thus, these claims are directed toward no more than the idea of conducting
14 an auction with auction rules and bids. They produce no useful, concrete and
15 tangible result because they are not instantiated within a physical embodiment that
16 results in the transfer of property of an actual auction. Even the almost gratuitous
17 references to a network in claims 28-32 do no more than attempt to exalt form over
18 substance in introducing a term that creates the illusion of physicality in some
19 embodiments, but even to convey a representation of an abstraction over an
20 electronic network is still no more than manipulating an abstraction, and societal
21 networks of auction houses (e.g. Christies, from 1766), that convey bids are too
22 notoriously old and well known to so narrowly construe this term.
23 Thus, claims 5-7 and 28-32 fail to claim statutory subject matter.
22
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013