Appeal 2007-1319
Application 09/797,017
1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (quoting Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard,
87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507, 22 L.Ed. 410 (1874)).
In a § 101 analysis, the critical question must be answered: “What did
the applicant invent?” Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix
Corp., 958 F.2d 1053, 1059, 22 USPQ2d 1033, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827 (Fed. Cir.
1989)). A § 101 inquiry is directed to the determination of whether the
claimed subject matter as a whole is a disembodied mathematical concept
representing nothing more than a “law of nature” or an “abstract idea,” or if
the mathematical concept has been reduced to some practical application
rendering it “useful.” AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications Inc., 172 F.3d
1352, 1357, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Alappat,
33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).
Instant claim 28, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of its
terms consistent with the Specification, requires no more than a mere
arrangement of data on a computer-readable medium. The content is not in
the form of computer-executable code capable of changing the underlying
function of a machine. In other words, the invention is not directed to a
computer program (i.e., software) or a data structure embodied in a
computer-readable medium. The claimed invention is directed to a mere
arrangement of data that might serve as input to a machine having computer-
executable code, similar to the data representative of music on a compact
disc. In either case, the data do not change the underlying function of the
machine. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.01
(8th Ed., Rev. 5, Aug. 2006).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013