Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
arguably yield a “useful, concrete, and tangible result” is not necessarily
statutory subject matter.
Specifically, the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test first
appeared in Alappat, which states: “This [claimed invention] is not a
disembodied mathematical concept which may be characterized as an
‘abstract idea,’ but rather a specific machine to produce a useful, concrete,
and tangible result.” Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557. The
court in Alappat thus devised a standard to partition patentable inventions
using mathematical algorithms from claims for disembodied mathematical
concepts. State Street also involved claims to a machine employing a
mathematical algorithm, but in this instance for managing a mutual fund
investment portfolio. Finding the claim to be valid under § 101, State Street
held that “transformation of data … by a machine through a series of
mathematical calculations into a final share price, constitutes a practical
application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it
produces ‘a useful, concrete and tangible result.’” State Street. 149 F.3d at
1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601. Likewise, AT&T also ties this test to
applications of mathematical algorithms: “Because the claimed process
applies the Boolean principle to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible
result without pre-empting other uses of the mathematical principle, on its
face the claimed process comfortably falls within the scope of § 101.”
AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358, 50 USPQ2d at 1452; see also id. at 1361, 50
USPQ2d at 1453 (concluding that “the focus is understood to be not on
whether there is a mathematical algorithm at work, but on whether the
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013