background image
584, 593 (1978)); In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 960 (CCPA 1979), vacated as moot sub 
nom. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 444 U.S. 1028 (1980).  Whether a claim is drawn to 
patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 is an issue of law that we review de novo.  
Comiskey, 499 F.3d at 1373; AT&T Corp. v. Excel Commc'ns, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 
1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  Although claim construction, which we also review de novo, is 
an important first step in a § 101 analysis, see State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature 
Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that whether a claim is invalid 
under § 101 "is a matter of both claim construction and statutory construction"), there is 
no claim construction dispute in this appeal.  We review issues of statutory 
interpretation such as this one de novo as well.  Id. 
A. 
As this appeal turns on whether Applicants' invention as claimed meets the 
requirements set forth in § 101, we begin with the words of the statute: 
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, 
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful 
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the 
conditions and requirements of this title. 
 
35 U.S.C. § 101.  The statute thus recites four categories of patent-eligible subject 
matter:  processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter.  It is 
undisputed that Applicants' claims are not directed to a machine, manufacture, or 
composition of matter.
2
  Thus, the issue before us involves what the term "process" in  
                                                                                                                                             
examiner should generally first satisfy herself that the application's claims are drawn to 
patent-eligible subject matter. 
 
2
  
As a result, we decline to discuss In re Nuijten because that decision 
primarily concerned whether a claim to an electronic signal was drawn to a patent-
eligible manufacture.  500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  We note that the PTO 
2007-1130 5