Appeal 2007-0367
Application 09/782,149
Nonetheless, assuming arguendo that the claims are not solely
directed to an algorithm, then the next step set forth in the guidelines is to
determine whether the claimed invention is directed to a practical
application of an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Again
the claims involve neither a law of nature nor natural phenomenon, so the
issue is whether they are directed to a practical application of an abstract
idea. The guidelines indicate that either a transformation of physical subject
matter to a different state or thing or the production of a useful, concrete,
and tangible result equates to a practical application of an abstract idea, in
accordance with the test set forth in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Finance Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373; 47 USPQ2d 1596,
1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998). If the claims are not directed to a practical
application of an abstract idea (or they do not transform physical subject
matter to a different state or thing nor produce a useful, concrete, tangible
result), then the claims are nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In claims 1 through 9, we find no physical subject matter being
transformed, just numbers being manipulated. Further, we find no recitation
of a useful, concrete, tangible result, just a final score or number.
Accordingly, claims 1 through 9 are not directed to a practical application of
an abstract idea. They are merely directed to abstract ideas that are
nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Additionally, although the preamble of
claim 10 ties the method to the airline industry, the data being manipulated
are arbitrary numbers that do not represent physical subject matter, and the
result is still just a number. Therefore, as we find no physical subject matter
being transformed and no useful, concrete, tangible result, claim 10 is an
abstract idea that is nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013