disembodied mathematical concept which may be characterized as an 'abstract idea,'
but rather a specific machine to produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result."); see
also AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1357 ("Because the claimed process applies the Boolean
principle to produce a useful, concrete, tangible result without pre-empting other uses of
the mathematical principle, on its face the claimed process comfortably falls within the
scope of § 101."). The basis for this language in State Street and Alappat was that the
Supreme Court has explained that "certain types of mathematical subject matter,
standing alone, represent nothing more than abstract ideas until reduced to some type
of practical application." Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543; see also State St., 149 F.3d at 1373.
To be sure, a process tied to a particular machine, or transforming or reducing a
particular article into a different state or thing, will generally produce a "concrete" and
"tangible" result as those terms were used in our prior decisions. But while looking for
"a useful, concrete and tangible result" may in many instances provide useful
indications of whether a claim is drawn to a fundamental principle or a practical
application of such a principle, that inquiry is insufficient to determine whether a claim is
patent-eligible under § 101. And it was certainly never intended to supplant the
Supreme Court's test. Therefore, we also conclude that the "useful, concrete and
tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation
test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply.
elements of the claims on appeal all corresponded to supporting structures disclosed in
the written description).
19
As a result, those portions of our opinions in State Street and AT&T
relying solely on a "useful, concrete and tangible result" analysis should no longer be
relied on.
2007-1130 20