Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
statutory category of subject matter). "Signals" are considered an example
of nonstatutory subject matter either because they are an abstract idea or
because physical, but nontangible subject matter is not within any of the four
categories of § 101; a case involving "signals" is on appeal to the Federal
Circuit in In re Nuijten, No. 06-1301 (argued Feb. 2007).
The classes of "machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" refer
to physical, tangible "things" made from matter, which the patent system
was clearly intended to protect. One § 101 problem area is the "special
case" of a general purpose "machine" (e.g., a conventional computer as
opposed to new hardware) or a "general purpose machine"-implemented
"process" that performs an abstract idea, e.g., a computer or computer
process for performing a mathematical algorithm (which is the best known
type of "abstract idea"). Technically, this subject matter falls within § 101
because of the presence of a generic "machine," where a machine-
implemented method is a "process" under § 101 because it is a new use of a
known machine under § 100(b). However, a claim is not directed to
statutory subject matter just because it includes a machine. See Gottschalk
v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972) (claim 8 to "method of
converting signals from binary coded decimal form into binary" on a
machine (evidenced by the "reentrant shift register") was not a "process"
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 100(b) and 101). Claims to "machines" or
machine-implemented "processes" involve transformation of data by a
machine and are presently governed by the undefined "useful, concrete and
tangible result" test in State Street, which specifically limited the holding to
"transformation of data by a machine." However, there is a question of
45
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013