REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Becker et al DIXON 102(b) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Mansell THOMAS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 1216.01

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Fukuzawa HOFF 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Pilz et al HOFF 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Mieney et al GREEN 112(1) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

BILSKI - AFFIRMED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Market et al NAPPI 101/102(b) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.

If a claimed machine (or article of manufacture)2 involves a mathematical algorithm, then we must determine whether the scope of the claimed invention encompasses one of the judicially-created exceptions. This determination of claim scope requires that we make two inquiries:

(1) Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world3 use 4 (e.g., "not a mere field-of-use label having no significance")?5

(2) Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm6 either "in all fields" of use of the algorithm or even in "only one field?"7

2 Notwithstanding the court’s statement in Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1007) ("We have never held that a manufacture is ever required to produce any result."), if an applicant chooses to claim the manufacture in terms of applying a mathematical algorithm (e.g., Appellants’ claim 19), then this two-part inquiry applies to determine if the claim is directed to eligible subject matter under § 101.
3 "Real-world" is not sufficient alone to establish patent-eligible subject matter absent tangibility. See Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356.
4 See Benson, 409 U.S. at 68 (noting that the claim at issue was "so abstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown uses . . . .").
5 See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544 (noting that the claim’s recitation of "a rasterizer for creating a smooth waveform is not a mere field-of-use label having no significance.").
6 Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72.
7 See Bilski, 545 F.3d at 957 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 n.14) ("[I]neligibility under § 101 ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.’").

If the machine (or article of manufacture) claim involves a mathematical algorithm and fails either prong of our two-part inquiry, then the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. Ex parte Gutta, No. 2008-4366, 2009 WL 2563524 (BPAI 2009) (per curiam) (expanded panel), at *1.

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

Alappat, In re, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Ilsley et al GREEN 102(a)/102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Alfonsson et al KRATZ 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Flick HAIRSTON 102(b) ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P.A.