Ex Parte Dodge et al - Page 7

              Appeal 2007-1202                                                                                                
              Application 10/847,052                                                                                          

              abstract ideas, stored in a computer-readable medium, in a computer, or on an                                   
              electromagnetic carrier signal does not make it statutory.  See Diamond v. Diehr,                               
              450 U.S. 175, 185-86, 209 USPQ 1, 7-8 (1981) (noting that the claims for an                                     
              algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because “[t]he sole                                     
              practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a                              
              general purpose digital computer.”).  Such a result would exalt form over                                       
              substance.  In re Sarkar, 588 F.2d 1330, 1333, 200 USPQ 132, 137 (CCPA 1978)                                    
              (“[E]ach invention must be evaluated as claimed; yet semantogenic considerations                                
              preclude a determination based solely on words appearing in the claims.  In the                                 
              final analysis under § 101, the claimed invention, as a whole, must be evaluated for                            
              what it is.”) (quoted with approval in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 907, 214 USPQ                                 
              682, 687 (CCPA 1982)).  See also In re Johnson, 589 F.2d 1070, 1077, 200 USPQ                                   
              199, 206 (CCPA 1978) (“form of the claim is often an exercise in drafting”).                                    
              Thus, nonstatutory music is not a computer component and it does not become                                     
              statutory by merely recording it on a compact disk.  Protection for this type of                                
              work is provided under copyright law.                                                                           
                      When presented with a claim comprising descriptive material, an Examiner                                
              must determine whether the claimed nonfunctional descriptive material should be                                 
              given patentable weight.  The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider                                   
              all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior                             
              art.  In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  The                               
              PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter.  See                                       
              Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1384, 217 USPQ at 403; see also Diamond v. Diehr,  450 U.S.                                 
              at 191, 209 USPQ at 10.  However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight                                  
              to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between                              
              the descriptive material and the substrate.  See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84,                            

                                                              7                                                               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013