Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
Therefore, we conclude that Appellants’ claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-33, and
35, which produce a rearrangement or recombination of media data, fail to
apply their abstract ideas to produce a useful and concrete and tangible
result. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-33, and 35 fall outside the scope of § 101.
(3)
Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent
method claim 23, we conclude the systems of independent claims 1 and 35
cover (i.e., “preempt”) every substantial practical application of the abstract
idea. We conclude that these claims are so broad that they are directed to
the “abstract idea” itself, rather than a practical implementation of the
concept. Thus, the claimed process falls outside the scope of § 101.
Additionally, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 23, we conclude the method of claim 31 does not apply its abstract
idea to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result. We further conclude
that independent claim 33 is directed to a data structure, per se, that is not
embodied in a computer-readable medium.
Similarly, dependent claims 24-30, and 32 merely require that anyone
or anything receive, identify, combine, embed, or generate the claimed
media objects and/or metadata. For the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to independent claims 1, 23, and 31, we conclude the methods and
systems of dependent claims 2-5, 7-18, 20-22, 24-30, and 32 fall outside the
scope of § 101.
42
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013