Appeal 2007-2011
Application 09/823,272
physical subject matter. Thus, we find no physical subject matter being
transformed.
We also find that the methods of claims 1 and 3 through 6 fail to
produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result as a feature vector data space
index is neither concrete nor tangible. Since the methods performed by the
program code of claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 produce the same results as claims 1
and 3 through 6, they also fail to provide concrete and tangible results. Also,
the result of claims 12 and 13, a cell in a feature vector data space, is neither
concrete nor tangible. Accordingly, as claims 1, 3 through 8, and 10 through
13 fail to transform physical subject matter and fail to produce useful,
concrete, and tangible results, they are abstract ideas that are nonstatutory
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through 8, and 10
through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. We also enter a new ground
of rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8, and 10 through 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
Regarding the affirmed rejections, 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides
"Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from
the date of the original decision of the Board."
In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejection(s) of one or more
claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013