Iwahashi, In re

Decision Date07 November 1989
Docket NumberNo. 89-1019,89-1019
PartiesIn re Hiroyuki IWAHASHI, Yoshiki Nishioka and Mitsuhiro Hakaridani.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Charles Gorenstein, Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, of Falls Church, Va., for appellant. With him on the brief was Michael K. Mutter.

John C. Martin, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol.

Before RICH and BISSELL, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. *

RICH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (board), dated May 24, 1988, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the examiner's final rejection of the single claim of applicants' patent application serial No. 454,022, filed December 28, 1982, entitled "Auto-Correlation Circuit for Use in Pattern Recognition." The sole ground of rejection is that the subject matter claimed is nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101 because it is merely a mathematical algorithm. We reverse.

The real party in interest, according to appellants' brief, is Sharp Kabishiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation).

The opening sentence of the specification states: "This invention relates to an auto-correlation unit for use in pattern recognition to obtain auto-correlation coefficients as for stored signal samples." The embodiment more particularly discussed as a species of pattern recognition is voice recognition. The prior art calculation of auto-correlation coefficients is described as being based on a calculation formula involving a multiplication step. The specification states the disadvantage to be as follows:

Those state-of-the-art units for calculation of the auto-correlation coefficients have the disadvantage of requiring expensive multipliers and also complicated circuitry. As a result the auto-correlation unit circuitry within the entire pattern recognition apparatus is proportionately large and auto-correlation calculation demands a greater amount of time during recognition.

....

The principal object of this invention is to provide an auto-correlation unit for pattern recognition which evaluates auto-correlation coefficients by means of a simple circuitry without the need for an expensive multiplier as well as eliminating the above discussed disadvantages.

Underlying the auto-correlation unit claimed, is a plethora of mathematical demonstration by which the applicants purport to show that the approximated value of the desired coefficient can be obtained without multipliers by obtaining the square of the sum of two of the factors in the equation and calculating the auto-correlation coefficient therefrom according to a stated formula. The specification concludes:

As explained in the foregoing, this invention offers a highly cost effective auto-correlation unit for pattern recognition with simple circuitry without the need to use an expensive multiplier, but which has comparatively high accuracy and can, moreover, calculate auto-correlation coefficients at high speed.

Fig. 1 of the application drawings is described as "a block diagram schematically showing an embodiment of this invention" and appears as follows:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Fig. 2 is described as "a block diagram showing in more detail the embodiment of this invention" and appears as follows:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

We shall not attempt a description of the electronic circuitry shown by these drawings beyond explaining, for the better understanding of the claim, that the units designated "ROM" and "RAM" are, respectively, a read only memory and a random access memory, terms well understood by those skilled in the art. "CPU" is a central processing unit. In this case, the function of the ROM, 2 or 15, which is a permanent information storage device, is to deliver as output the square of a number fed to it as input. It is the electronic equivalent of a table in which one can look up the square of numbers over a desired range.

We next reproduce the claim on appeal and do so by presenting a copy of the claim as it has been presented in the Solicitor's brief, to which we have added the letters in brackets designating at [a] the preamble or introductory clause and at [b] through [h] the several means-plus-function and other elements of the combination of elements recited. Under the heading "Drawings" (the Solicitor's heading was "Fig. 1") we have copied verbatim the Solicitor's designations. Element [d], it will be noted, is not in means-plus-function form but specifies a "read only memory" or ROM, as the Solicitor says. Element [f] is an anomolous clause seemingly intended to indicate what data are stored in the ROM. It is not clear that a means for storing anything in the ROM is part of the disclosed "unit" since the application indicates that the squared values are "previously memorized" in the ROM. However that has nothing to do with the sole question before us which is whether the claim as a whole is, in the words of the Solicitor, "directed to nonstatutory subject matter," so we shall not comment further on element [f].

Claim Drawings

[a] An auto-correlation unit for providing auto-correlation

coefficients for use as feature parameters in pattern

recognition for N pieces of sampled input values Xn (n =

0 to N - 1), said unit comprising:

[b] means for extracting N pieces of sample input values Xn Not shown in

from a series of sample values in an input pattern Fig. 1;

expressed with an accuracy of optional multi-bits; analog to

digital

converter 11

in Fig. 2.

[c] means for calculating the sum of the sample values Xn and Adder 1.

Xn0 (t = O-P, P;

[d] a read only memory associated with said means for ROM 2.

calculating;

[e] means for feeding to said read only memory the sum of the Signal path

sampled input values as an address signal; connecting

adder 1 to

ROM 2.

[f] means for storing in said read only memory the squared Internal

value of each sum, (Xn k Xn0)2; structure of

ROM 2 after

being

programmed

to store

squared

values.

[g] means for fetching and outputting the squared values of Read pulse

each such sum of the sample input values from said read (not shown)

only memory when said memory is addressed by the sum of which is

the sample input values; and applied to

ROM 2; in

Fig. 2,

signal f1 or

f2, applied

to ROM 15.

[h] means responsive to the output (Xn k Xn-0)2 of said read Calculating

only memory for providing an auto-correlation circuit 5.

coefficient for use as a feature parameter according to

the following formula:

                                N - 1
                                  D      (Xn          k      Xn - 0)2
                                n = o
                               ______________________________________  - 1
                                          N - 1
                               2.           D        Xn2
                                          n = 0
                

This is one more in the line of cases stemming from the Supreme Court decision in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972), decided by our predecessor, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. They include in chronological order, In re Chatfield, 545 F.2d 152, 191 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1976), cert. denied 434 U.S. 875, 98 S.Ct. 226, 54 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977), In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1978), In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 203 USPQ 812 (CCPA 1979), In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1980), In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982), and In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 215 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1982). The list is not exhaustive but representative.

Out of these cases came the Freeman-Walter test to determine whether a claim defines nonstatutory subject matter. It was stated in Freeman as follows:

Determination of whether a claim preempts nonstatutory subject matter as a whole, in the light of Benson, requires a two-step analysis. First, it must be determined whether the claim directly or indirectly recites an "algorithm" in the Benson sense of that term, for a claim which fails even to recite an algorithm clearly cannot wholly preempt an algorithm. Second, the claim must be further analyzed to ascertain whether in its entirety it wholly preempts that algorithm.

573 F.2d at 1245, 197 USPQ at 471. The opinion next discusses the meaning of "algorithm" quoting from Chatfield footnote 5:

Over-concentration on the word "algorithm" alone, for example, may mislead. The Supreme Court carefully supplied a definition of the particular algorithm before it [in Benson ], i.e., "[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." The broader definition of algorithm is "a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1976).

... It would be unnecessarily detrimental to our patent system to deny inventors patent protection on the sole ground that their contribution could be broadly termed an "algorithm". [Emphasis of "sole" original, otherwise ours.]

In footnote 8 of the Freeman opinion the court further said:

The preferred definition of "algorithm" in the computer art is: "A fixed step-by-step procedure for accomplishing a given result; usually a simplified procedure for solving a complex problem, also a full statement of a finite number of steps." C. Sippl & C. Sippl, Computer Dictionary and Handbook (1972).

Id. at 1246 n. 8, 197 USPQ at 471 n. 8. Appellants state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 12 Marzo 1992
    ...apparatus claims is determined with reference to the description in the '459 patent specification. In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 1375, 12 USPQ2d 1908, 1911-12 (Fed.Cir.1989). The apparatus claims require a means for converting the electrocardiograph signals from the analog form in which th......
  • Alappat, In re, 92-1381
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 29 Julio 1994
    ...112 p 6 in rendering patentability determinations, characterizing this court's statements to the contrary in In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 1375, 12 USPQ2d 1908, 1912 (Fed.Cir.1989), "as dicta," and dismissing this court's discussion of Sec. 112 p 6 in Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v......
  • State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 23 Julio 1998
    ...inventions which may be patented and § 100(b) further defines the word "process" as meaning "process, art or In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 1374, 12 USPQ2d 1908, 1911 (Fed.Cir.1989) (emphasis in the original). method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composit......
  • Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 97-1277
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 3 Febrero 1998
    ...set forth in the specification and its equivalents. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, p6; Intellicall, 952 F.2d at 1388; In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 1375, 12 USPQ2d 1908, 1912 (Fed.Cir.1989). The only claim limitation at issue in this appeal is the limitation in Claim 53, which requires "means for de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Cybersource Decision Raises The Patent-Eligibility Bar For Software
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 13 Septiembre 2011
    ...the computer to perform a method. Hence, the name Beauregard claim. Six years earlier, the same court, in its decision In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, (Fed. Cir. 1989), once construed a Read-Only Memory (ROM) as a device. In CyberSource, however, the court corrected what it considered the lo......
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT