Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
1992), as an example that qualifies as a § 101 “process” in addition to the
Supreme Court’s test. See id. at 1359, 50 USPQ2d at 1452.
Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has consistently used its own “data
transformation” test in assessing the eligibility of various machine-
implemented claims. In Alappat, the court held that “data, transformed by a
machine” “to produce a smooth waveform display” “constituted a practical
application of an abstract idea.” State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d
at 1601. Specifically, the court in Alappat stated that the claimed invention
as a whole was directed to a machine for “converting discrete waveform data
samples into anti-aliased pixel illumination intensity data to be displayed on
a display means.” 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (en banc). In Arrhythmia, the court held “the transformation of
electrocardiograph signals” “by a machine” “constituted a practical
application of an abstract idea.” State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d
at 1601. Specifically, the court in Arrhythmia stated “the number obtained is
not a mathematical abstraction; it is a measure in microvolts of a specified
heart activity, an indicator of the risk of ventricular tachycardia.” 958 F.2d at
1062, 22 USPQ2d at 1039. Likewise, in State Street, the court held that “the
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 – the
Federal Circuit also regards the transformation of intangible subject matter
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013