background image
"'mixing' two elements or compounds to produce a chemical substance or mixture is 
clearly a statutory transformation although no apparatus is claimed to perform the step 
and although the step could be performed manually."  Id.  But the Board concluded that 
Applicants' claims do not involve any patent-eligible transformation, holding that 
transformation of "non-physical financial risks and legal liabilities of the commodity 
provider, the consumer, and the market participants" is not patent-eligible subject 
matter.  Id. at 43.  The Board also held that Applicants' claims "preempt[] any and every 
possible way of performing the steps of the [claimed process], by human or by any kind 
of machine or by any combination thereof," and thus concluded that they only claim an 
abstract idea ineligible for patent protection.  Id. at 46-47.  Finally, the Board held that 
Applicants' process as claimed did not produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result," 
and for this reason as well was not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.  Id. at 49-50. 
Applicants timely appealed to this court under 35 U.S.C. § 141.  We have 
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 
II. 
 
Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 is a 
threshold inquiry, and any claim of an application failing the requirements of § 101 must 
be rejected even if it meets all of the other legal requirements of patentability.  In re 
Comiskey, 499 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
1
 (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 
                                            
1
  
Although our decision in Comiskey may be misread by some as requiring 
in every case that the examiner conduct a § 101 analysis before assessing any other 
issue of patentability, we did not so hold.  As with any other patentability requirement, 
an examiner may reject a claim solely on the basis of § 101.  Or, if the examiner deems 
it appropriate, she may reject the claim on any other ground(s) without addressing         
§ 101.  But given that § 101 is a threshold requirement, claims that are clearly drawn to 
unpatentable subject matter should be identified and rejected on that basis.  Thus, an 
2007-1130 4