Application of de Castelet
Decision Date | 06 October 1977 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 76-699. |
Citation | 562 F.2d 1236 |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Parties | Application of Gaetan De Coye de CASTELET. |
Robert J. Frank, Stevens, Davis, Miller & Mosher, Arlington, Va. attorneys of record, for appellant.
Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.
Appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board), affirming the rejection of claims 5-7, all the claims in application serial No. 68,507, filed August 31, 1970, entitled "Method of Generating a Curve, Applicable to Tracing Machines or Machine Tools." We affirm.
De Castelet's invention relates to a method of generating a curve or family of curves, employing a computer in conjunction with drafting and milling machines. The invention employs these principles: (1) a curve may be represented by four points defining two straight line tangents to the ends of the curve, and (2) a curve can be represented by a transformed base-of-reference curve, by transforming coordinates of points representing a unit or base curve into a coordinate system of a curve to be generated.
In de Castelet's overall system:
data are inputed to computer 10 through control boards 19 and 20. Calculations, using the inputed data and pursuant to stored programs, are performed by computer 10. Computer 10 also receives milling machine 11 position information from encoder 13 and drafting machine 12 position information from encoder 14. Based upon the results of its calculations and information received from encoders 13 and 14, computer 10 generates speed-change signals for controlling position motor driving shafts 21-25. The net result of the operation is a machined surface (milling machine 11) or a drawing (drafting machine 12) which corresponds to a desired curve formation.
According to de Castelet's method, curves to be generated are first broken down into a series of successive arcs. Those arcs can be defined by two straight line tangents, for example, AM and BN in the following illustrations:
The data inputed to the computer constitutes the X, Y, and Z Cartesian coordinates of points A, M, N, and B. The computer, pursuant to a stored program, treats each arc so defined as though it were the transformed curve of a base curve inscribed within and between two opposite vertices of a unit cube. The coordinates of that base curve are transformed by computer calculations, according to the following transformation equations, into coordinates of the curve to be generated:
De Castelet claims:
wherein
Xw, Yw and Zw are the coordinates of a current point of each arc of the curve to be generated;
The board, citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), stated that "where the claimed novelty involves a formula, equation or algorithmic process and has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, a patent to such would in practical effect be a patent on the algorithm itself, and should not be granted."
Acknowledging that independent claim 7 does not recite a specific algorithm, equation, or mathematical formula, the board nevertheless found an algorithmic process contained therein, and concluded that, because the apparatus was known, any novelty in the claims resulted from that algorithmic process. That novelty, the board said: "is of the same nature as that which is condemned in Benson."
The board was of the opinion that patenting the present claims would, in effect, preempt the algorithmic process despite the fact that "they recite a machine environment, a particular art or a particular end use."
As in In re Chatfield, 545 F.2d 152, 191 USPQ 730 (Cust. & Pat.App.1976), cert. denied, 46 U.S.L.W. 3203 (Oct. 4, 1977), the sole issue before us is whether the particular claims on appeal define statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1
OPINIONThough we agree with the board's ultimate conclusion, and with its reference to Benson as precluding patentability of claims to a mathematical equation, we disagree with several of the board's expressions of the applicable law. Initially, the board found:
The thrust of the decision in Benson to be that computer programs or program implemented algorithms are not patentable subject matter at least until such time as the Congress acts otherwise.
That "computer programs" are not patentable is not the "thrust" of Benson. As the Court cautioned:
It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold. 409 U.S. at 71, 93 S.Ct. at 257, 175 USPQ at 676.
and as the Court's characterization of Benson in Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 224, 96 S.Ct. 1393, 1396, 47 L.Ed.2d 692, 189 USPQ 257, 259 (1976) confirmed:
Our limited holding * * * was that respondent's method was not a patentable "process" as that term is defined in 35 U.S.C. § 100(b). Citations omitted.
Absent contrary directions, no basis exists for a moratorium on protection of inventions embodying or using computer programs. Such broad prohibition could subject meritorious statutory inventions to unabatable piracy, and could forestall invention disclosure, the hallmark of the patent system, until Congress chooses to act.
We disagree, also, with the breadth of the board's succeeding comment:
Stated another way, where the claimed novelty involves a formula, equation or algorithmic process and has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, a patent to such would in practical effect be a patent on the algorithm itself, and should not be granted.
That second comment is not a restatement of the board's preceding comment, insofar as it envisions the question of statutory subject matter as residing in a "claimed novelty" and its practical application. As a majority indicated in Chatfield, supra, claim dissection and comparison against prior art to determine a limited "claimed novelty" is not proper. What an applicant chooses to encompass by the whole of his claims comprises his "claimed novelty." There is no 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection before us, based on the view that it would have been obvious to employ de Castelet's equations in apparatus described by the examiner as old.2
The board's focus on practical applications for the "claimed novelty" springs from the "nutshell" holding in Benson:
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. 409 U.S. at 71-72, 93 S.Ct. at 257, 175 USPQ at 676.
That language is interpreted by the solicitor and the board as foreclosing patentability of the appealed claims because, as de Castelet admitted at oral argument, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ASG Industries, Inc. v. United States
... ... In this connection, the first countervailing duty law of general application 1 was enacted as section 5 of the Tariff Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 151, 205, and provided: ... Sec. 5. That whenever any country, dependency, or ... ...
-
Diamond v. Diehr, Ii, 79-1112
...form of claim analysis. 545 F.2d, at 158. The court would reaffirm this proposition consistently thereafter. See, e. g., In re de Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 1240 (1977); In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1029-1030 (1977); In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 1243-1244 (1978); In re Toma, 575 F.2d 872, 8......
-
Parker v. Flook
...of that court in other cases presenting the same basic issue. See In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237; In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026; In re De Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236; In re Deutsch, 553 F.2d 689; In re Chatfield, 545 F.2d 152. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment before us. 1. We use the word ......
-
Application of Gelnovatch
...1330, 200 USPQ 132 (Cust. & Pat.App.1978), In re Johnson, 589 F.2d 1070, 200 USPQ 199 (Cust. & Pat.App.1978); In re de Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 195 USPQ 439 (Cust. & Pat.App.1977); In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 195 USPQ 340 (Cust. & Pat.App.1977); In re Flook, 559 F.2d 21, 195 USPQ 9 (Cust.......
-
Chapter §4.02 Undue Experimentation
...covered inventions not yet made, indicating the additional failure of the description to enable such a broad claim."); In re De Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 1142 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (Markey, C.J.) (characterizing Supreme Court's Morse decision as "principally involving an issue raisable today under......
-
A Field Guide to Intellectual Property
...re Waldbaum, 559 F.2d 611, 194 U.S.P.Q. 465 (CCPA 1977); In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 195 U.S.P.Q. 340 (CCPA 1977); In re De Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 195 U.S.P.Q. 439 (CCPA 1977); and In re Johnston, Danack and Zunsford, 589 F.2d 1070, 200 U.S.P.Q. 199 (CCPA 1979). 23. For an excellent dis......
-
Software patent applications directed to business and mathematical processing applications highlight the tension between State Street and Benson.
...that a result displayed as a shade of gray "provides no greater or better information" than mere display of a number); In re De Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 1244 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ("final transmitting step constitutes nothing more than reading out the result of the calculations."); GUIDELINES, su......
-
From Telegraphs to Content Protection: the Evolution of Signals as Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.s.c. § 101
...used the word "signals" to describe the numerical data being converted. 43 Id. at 68. 44 Id. at 67. 45 Id. at 71. 46 See In re Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 1243 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ("Because it did not consider the performance of an algorithm by a computer as constituting a practical application of......