Appeal 2007-0367
Application 09/782,149
statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is to determine whether the claims as a
whole are directed to nothing more than abstract ideas, natural phenomena,
or laws of nature. Clearly, the present claims recite neither a natural
phenomenon nor a law of nature, so the issue is whether they are directed to
an abstract idea. We note that mathematical algorithms are considered to be
abstract ideas. Thus, processes that are merely mathematical algorithms are
nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We further note that it is generally
difficult to ascertain whether a process is merely an abstract idea,
particularly since claims are often drafted to include minor physical
limitations such as data gathering steps or post-solution activity. However,
if the claims are considered to be an abstract idea, then the claims are not
eligible for and, therefore, are excluded from patent protection.
Present claims 1 through 9 recite a machine-implemented method.
However, as noted supra, the question is whether the claims as a whole are
nothing more than abstract ideas. As a whole, the claims recite a series of
mathematical steps. In particular, independent claim 1 recites assigning two
scores, or numbers, ordering based on the first number, ordering based on
the second number, ordering based on a third value, or number, and
assigning a final score, or number. We find nothing in claim 1, or any of its
dependents, other than mathematical steps. Claim 10 recites the same steps
as claim 1, but relates the steps to the airline industry. Specifically, the
method is for evaluating customers in the airline industry, the first attribute
is net revenue, and the second attribute is number of flights. However, the
process itself is still a series of mathematical steps. Thus, claims 1 through
10 merely recite mathematical algorithms.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013