Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a
process claim that does not include particular machines.”).3
Here, we find no physical transformation of an article to a different
state or thing. While claim 6 recites “processing the organization
information, the overlay information, and the active information …” We
find no recitation in claim 6 of the processing step transforming the data,
rather the claim merely recites visualizing the data. 4 As discussed supra
visualization is an abstract concept. Even if the visualization of data were
construed as a transformation of data the claim would not be drawn to
statutory subject matter as the language of the claim does not require any
machine or apparatus to perform the visualization. We note that our
reviewing court has found transformation of data by a machine constitutes
statutory subject matter if the claimed invention as a whole accomplishes a
practical application. That is, it must produce a “useful, concrete and
tangible result.” State Street, 149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596 at
1600-02. We note that State Street required transformation of data by a
machine before it applied the “useful, concrete, and tangible test.” However,
State Street did not hold that a “useful, concrete and tangible result” alone,
without a machine, is sufficient for statutory subject matter. Id. at 1373, 47
USPQ2d at 1601. Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, we
3 The principal exception to this rule, as explained supra, is when the
machine-implemented method merely manipulates abstractions. See
Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676-77.
4 We note the recited steps of “obtaining organization information …
obtaining overlay information . . . ”, and “obtaining active information” are
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013