2007-1130 32
fundamental concept of hedging and mathematical calculations inherent in hedging (not
even limited to any particular mathematical formula). And while Applicants argue that
the scope of this pre-emption is limited to hedging as applied in the area of consumable
commodities, the Supreme Court's reasoning has made clear that effective pre-emption
of all applications of hedging even just within the area of consumable commodities is
impermissible. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92 (holding that field-of-use limitations are
insufficient to impart patent-eligibility to otherwise unpatentable claims drawn to
fundamental principles). Moreover, while the claimed process contains physical steps
(initiating, identifying), it does not involve transforming an article into a different state or
thing. Therefore, Applicants' claim is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under
§ 101.
CONCLUSION
Because the applicable test to determine whether a claim is drawn to a patent-
eligible process under § 101 is the machine-or-transformation test set forth by the
Supreme Court and clarified herein, and Applicants' claim here plainly fails that test, the
decision of the Board is
AFFIRMED.