Application of Walter
Decision Date | 27 March 1980 |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 79-599. |
Citation | 618 F.2d 758 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Application of William C. WALTER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Reed C. Lawlor, Pasadena, Cal., attorney of record, for appellant, Robert C. Smith, Sylmar, Cal., of counsel.
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, MILLER and MALETZ,* Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board), affirming the examiner's final rejection of claims 7-14 and 16-18 in application serial No. 303,693, filed November 6, 1972, entitled "Seismic Prospecting System." The sole ground of rejection of the claims is that they are directed to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.
Appellant's invention is used in seismic prospecting and surveying. In this field, seismic source waves are generated and transmitted downwardly into the earth. There they are deflected by subsurface formations and anomalies. The deflected waves return to the earth's surface and are detected by transducers, known as geophones, which are distributed on the surface over the area of exploration. The geophones convert the returning mechanical vibrations into electrical signals, which are then recorded on a record medium, such as magnetic tape or chart recorder, for analysis. By studying the records of the deflected waves, analysts are able to make determinations concerning the nature of the subsurface structure of the earth.
Several types of seismic source waves have been used in seismic prospecting and surveying. One type, known as impulse waves, are sharp pulses lasting 0.05 second or less and are generated by a powerful force of short duration, such as an explosion. Another type of seismic source wave, with which appellant's invention is used, are "chirp" signals. A chirp signal is a frequency-modulated continuous wave in which the frequency of vibration is varied as a function of time, usually a linear function, over a substantial period of as much as several seconds. Chirp signals are often referred to as "sweep" signals, since the frequency is swept from one value to another. Chirp signals are generated by mechanical apparatus which vibrates against the surface of the earth.
As a chirp signal travels down into the earth, it is deflected by subsurface features which lie at varying depths and at different distances from the numerous geophones which are set out on the surface. At any given instant, therefore, a single geophone receives portions of the returning chirp signal which have been deflected from different depths and locations. This composite signal is a jumble of different frequency components. Before the results of the survey can be evaluated, the jumbled signal must be broken down into its components and its individual deflected portions identified.
Appellant has invented a method, and apparatus for performing the method, of cross-correlating the returning jumbled signal with the original chirp signal which was transmitted into the earth. As a result, the returning signal is effectively unscrambled; each of the trains of waves received at each geophone station is converted to a form equivalent to the type of signal which would have been produced had an impulse-type signal been used in place of the chirp signal. Appellant's claims identify these end products as "partial product signals."
Appellant's method is performed on the record signal made from each geophone. The record signal is sampled and converted to a digital format. It is then divided into segments. Several mathematical operations are performed, including computing Fourier transforms and cross-correlation utilizing the Cooley-Tukey algorithm as modified by Bergland.1 Appellant's claim 7 is illustrative of his invention:
where N represents the number of segments in the series of reference signals, and
O
where M is the number of segments to be produced in the cross-correlated result, to produce a series of partial product signals FTPm where m = 1, 2 ... M representative of the Fourier transform of said series of sample signals and said series of reference signals for each said geophone station.2
In his final rejection, the examiner stated that the claims were directed to the mathematical procedure outlined in the specification for cross-correlating the sets of signals. He found no reason to distinguish between the method and apparatus claims, holding that distinction to be legally immaterial "Where the only mode of practicing an invention is disclosed by way of an algorithm for use in a computer program."
In affirming the rejection, the board agreed that the distinction between method and apparatus claims was of no significance because "It would be anomalous to grant apparatus claims encompassing any and every `means for' practicing the method claimed in the method claims if the latter were nonstatutory * * *." It therefore addressed both categories of claims in a single discussion.
In analyzing the claims, the board viewed the activity recited in the preambles as being directed to the gathering of data. It found that steps like a) through e) of claim 7 serve to allocate the sample signals to various locations in the computer memory in accordance with the rules built into the programs for producing the end result—"a series of partial product signals ... representative of the Fourier transform of said series of sample signals and said series of reference signals for each said geophone station," quoting from the last clause of claim 7.
The board stated that practicing the method steps had to include processing the disclosed formulas and operating the computers according to the Cooley-Tukey algorithm as modified by Bergland. After reviewing the definition of the word "algorithm" as used by the Supreme Court in § 101 cases,3 the board characterized appellant's claims as mathematical exercises giving the following three reasons (bracketed numerals ours):
Appellant's main contention is that his claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States
...L.Ed.2d 572 (1966), courts do "not read limitations into claims merely because they are disclosed in the specifications," In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758, 768 (C.C.P.A.1980). See also In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404 (C.C.P.A.1969) (specifications properly used to "interpret limitations explici......
-
Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp.
...terms, the courts have floundered. At length, in In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1978) as modified by In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1980), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals settled on a two-step test to detect unpatentable algorithms under the Benson ......
-
Alappat, In re, 92-1381
...(CCPA 1982), In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 214 USPQ 673 (CCPA 1982), In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 215 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1982), In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1980), and In re Maucorps, When independent claim 15 is construed in accordance with Sec. 112 p 6, claim 15 reads as follows,......
-
In re Bilski
...the issue of whether several other purported articulations of § 101 tests are valid and useful. The first of these is known as the Freeman-Walter-Abele test after the three of our predecessor court that formulated and then refined the test: In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (CCPA 1978); In re Wa......
-
Bioinformatics: The New Software Patent Frontier
...17, 2000, at 3. See, e.g., Diamond v. Dehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (CCPA 1978), as modified by In re Walters, 618 F.2d 758 (CCPA 1980) and In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982), Arrhythmia Research Tech. V. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992), In re Lo......
-
My Reflections On Examining And Prosecuting Patents In AI For The Last 40 Years
...Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 176 (1978) 3 Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) 4 In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980); In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 5 "Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions." 1184 OG 87 (March 26, 1996......
-
My Reflections On Examining And Prosecuting Patents In AI For The Last 40 Years
...Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 176 (1978) 3 Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) 4 In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980); In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 5 "Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions." 1184 OG 87 (March 26, 1996......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...319 F.2d 259 (C.C.P.A. 1963); In re Sweet, 393 F.2d 837 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980); In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and In re Iwahsashi, 888 F.2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. (237.) In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d......
-
Bilski v. Kappos: A Breath of Fresh Air or Resuscitating Uncertainty for Business Process Method Patents in the Information Age?
...eligibility under Section 101. 70 62 In re Bilski , 545 F.3d at 958–59. See In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980); and In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978) for a complete review of the cases which developed this standard. 63 Abele , 68......
-
Amazon.com: a Look at Patenting Computer Implemented Business Methods Following State Street
...v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175). 11 See King, supra note 9, at 1134-38 (citing In re Freeman, 573 F. 2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Walter, 618 F. 2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980); and In re Abele, 684 F. 2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 12 See King, supra note 9, at 1140 (citing In re Alappat, 33 F. 3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994......
-
Software patent applications directed to business and mathematical processing applications highlight the tension between State Street and Benson.
...7 n.4. (301.) See id. at 18. (302.) See id. at 21-22. (303.) See id. (304.) Id. at 24. (305.) Id. at 26 n.4. (306.) Id. (307.) Id. (308.) 618 F.2d 758, 768-70 (C.C.P.A. 1980). It is interesting and revealing that the Training Materials cite to the Circuit Court of Patent Appeals precedent r......