Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
implemented methods using mathematical algorithms to transform data,
rather than embracing it as a general test for eligibility.
Accordingly, our understanding of the precedents at present is: Any
computer program claimed as a machine implementing the program
(Alappat, State Street) or as a method of a machine implementing the
program (AT&T), is patentable if it transforms data and achieves a useful,
concrete and tangible result (State Street, AT&T). Exceptions occur when
the invention in actuality pre-empts an abstract idea, as in a mathematical
algorithm (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676-677). Because
Appellants’ claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-33, and 35 do not require a machine
implementing a mathematical formula to transform data, the “useful,
concrete, and tangible result” test is irrelevant to considering the eligibility
of Appellants’ claims.
(ii)
Appellants’ Claims Do Not Produce a
Useful, Concrete, and Tangible Result
Even if we accept as a given, that Appellants have established the
“utility” of the invention, “utility” does not automatically establish that the
result is also tangible and concrete.
We note that the receiving, identifying, combining, and embedding
steps of claim 23 are performed on components that are software and/or data
structures per se which are merely abstractions represented as data.
Therefore, even if the results of the receiving, identifying, combining, and
embedding steps were relevant to establishing a tangible result for the claim
40
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013