Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601
(Fed. Cir. 1998). Responding to the argument that process claims must
recite a “physical transformation,” the Federal Circuit in AT&T ruled that
“physical transformation” “is not an invariable requirement, but merely one
example of how a mathematical algorithm may bring about a useful
application.” AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352,
1358, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Quoting the Supreme
Court’s language, “e.g., transforming or reducing an article to a different
state or thing” from Diehr, the AT&T court noted the usage of “e.g.”
“denotes an example, not an exclusive requirement.” Id. at 1359, 50
USPQ2d at 1452. AT&T went on to cite the transformation of intangible
data signals in the method claim of Arrhythmia Research Technology Inc. v.
Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053, 1059, 22 USPQ2d 1033, 1038 (Fed. Cir.
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
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013