Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
Claims 23 and 31 do not expressly or impliedly require the steps to be
performed by a machine. Accordingly, the "useful, concrete and tangible"
test of State Street does not apply.
Claims 23 and 31 do not expressly or impliedly require the media
objects or metadata to be physical entities such as electrical signals. The
claims are broad enough to read on transformation of data alone, which does
not meet the definition of a "process" because data is not physical subject
matter. While a practical application of the claims would certainly require
transformation of physical subject matter, such as electrical signals
representing images and sound, the claims are not so limited. Claims that
are broad enough to read on nonstatutory as well as statutory subject matter
are unpatentable. Accordingly, I agree that claims 23 and 31 are directed to
nonstatutory subject matter under § 101.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites:
1. A media generation system comprising:
a component that receives a plurality of media objects;
a component that annotates the plurality of media objects with
at least a subset of metadata;
a component that generates at least one new media object via
combining a subset of the media objects based at least in part upon the
metadata associated therewith; and
a component that embeds a first media object into a second
media object.
50
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013