Ex Parte Glenner et al - Page 41


               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).                   

                                                                                                           


                                                    41                                                      

Page:  Previous  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013