In re Nuijten - 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Rule:

Transitory electrical and electromagnetic signals propagating through some medium, such as wires, air, or a vacuum, are not encompassed by any of the four enumerated categories which appear in 35 U.S.C.S. § 101: "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."

Facts:

Petrus A.C.M. Nuijten (the “applicant”) sought a patent on a technique that improved existing watermark technology by modifying watermarked signals in a way that partially compensated for distortion introduced by the watermark. A patent examiner allowed the applicant's claim for a patent on the process he invented, a device that performed that process, and a storage medium holding the resulting signals, but disallowed the applicant's claims seeking a patent on encoded signals his technique used. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reversed the examiner's decision denying several claims for obviousness-type double patenting, but upheld the examiner's decision disallowing four claims that sought protection of the encoded signals. The applicant appealed. 

Issue:

Were the encoded signals entitled to patent?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court of appeals found that the Board reached the correct result when it disallowed the applicant's claims on the encoded signals. 35 U.S.C.S. § 101 allowed the applicant to obtain a patent on a "process," "machine," "manufacture," or "composition of matter," and the encoded signals he used in his technique did not qualify as a "process," "machine," "manufacture," or "composition of matter.