Appeal 2007-1246
Application 10/014,180
Nonetheless, assuming arguendo that the claims are not solely
directed to algorithms, the next question is whether the claimed invention is
directed to a practical application of an abstract idea. "[W]hen a claim
containing [an abstract idea] implements or applies that [idea] in a structure
or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function
which the patent laws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or
reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the
requirements of § 101." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, 209 USPQ at 10. Also,
according to the test set forth in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature
Finance Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601 (Fed.
Cir. 1998), the production of a useful, concrete, and tangible result equates
to a practical application of an abstract idea.
In claims 1 and 10, we find no physical subject matter being
transformed, just numerical values being manipulated. Further, though the
methods are for evaluating the closeness of two items, in claims 1 through 4,
6, 10 through 13, and 15, the type of items being compared is not specified
and could, in fact, be nothing more than geometric figures. Although claims
5, 7 through 9, 14, and 16 through 18 recite that the items are programs,
content, or products, the data being manipulated by the process steps do not
represent physical subject matter. Thus, we find no physical subject matter
being transformed. Similarly, claims 19 through 23 provide no
transformation of physical subject matter as they are directed to general
purpose machines which are configured to perform the methods of claims 1
and 10 and articles which store program code for performing the methods of
claims 1 and 10.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013