Ex Parte Burg et al - Page 7


                Appeal 2007-1695                                                                             
                Application 10/418,835                                                                       
                step of “processing the organization information and the overlay information                 
                …” (claim 1).  We acknowledge that a claim is not directed to statutory                      
                subject matter just because it includes a machine.  See Gottschalk v. Benson,                
                409 U.S. 63, 71-72, 175 USPQ 673, 675 (1972).2  However, here we agree                       
                with Appellants that claim 1 is not directed to a mental construct and/or an                 
                abstract idea (i.e., a mathematical formula).  Specifically, we agree that the               
                step of displaying the organizational subtree recited in claim 1 is a useful,                
                concrete, and tangible result.  Therefore, we find the subject matter of instant             
                claim 1 distinguishable from Benson’s computer-implemented formula for                       
                converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals.  We further find that the                   
                recited extraction and processing steps of claim 1 transform data.  Our                      
                reviewing court has held that transformation of intangible subject matter                    
                (i.e., data or signals) by a computer may qualify as a § 101 process.  See                   
                State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368,                     
                1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  Lastly, we agree with                          
                Appellants that claim 1 is not directed to a computer program, per se,                       
                because a computer is explicitly claimed.  Therefore, we will reverse the                    
                Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and associated dependent claims 2-4 as                       
                being directed to non statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.                        
                                                                                                            
                2 See Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 675: “It is conceded that one                   
                may not patent an idea.  But in practical effect that would be the result if the             
                formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were                             
                patented in this case.  The mathematical formula involved here has no                        
                substantial practical application except in connection with a digital                        
                computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent                     
                would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect                       
                would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”                                                  

                                                     7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013