Appeal 2007-1089 Application 10/348,277 as a whole, these steps operate on abstractions and simply can not produce a tangible result. As discussed supra, our review of the claims finds they produce a mere rearrangement or recombination of data (media objects). To reiterate, Appellants’ Specification states: “[f]or example, a component may be, but is not limited to being, a process running on a processor, a processor, an object, an executable, a thread of execution, a program, and a computer. (Specification 7, ¶ 2, emphasis added). Therefore, we find Appellants’ intent is to cover all alternatives, modifications, and equivalents included within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims. Since the language of claim 23 does not preclude humans from performing the steps of the method, then based on Appellants’ statements, we must conclude that claim 23 is intended to include all possible ways of performing the steps of the method, as the result of the claimed process. We see the question before us to be, whether receiving, identifying, combining, and embedding data (i.e., media objects and/or metadata) produces a useful, tangible, and concrete result? As discussed supra, the Federal Circuit regards the transformation of intangible subject matter by a machine to be such a useful, tangible, and concrete result, so long as data or signals represent some real world activity. However, we do not find data or signals in claim 23 which represent a real world activity of the type found in Arrhythmia (human cardiac activity), Alappat (a smoothed waveform display of inputted waveform data), or State Street (a final share price). 41Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013