Board Decision
The Board concluded that the method claims were directed to an “abstract idea, and therefore were not patent-eligible subject matter. The Board then found that a “paradigm” does not fall within any of section 101's four enumerated categories of statutory subject matter. Then, turning to the paradigm claims’ internal reference to “a marketing company,” the Board said:
There is nothing in the record of this case that would suggest that “a marketing company” can be considered to be a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter. In other words, the paradigm claims on appeal are not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are not directed to subject matter within the four recognized categories of patentable inventions. Therefore, the paradigm claims, claims 24-35, are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least this reason.
Read more about this topic: In Re Ferguson
Famous quotes containing the words board and/or decision:
“Midway the lake we took on board two manly-looking middle-aged men.... I talked with one of them, telling him that I had come all this distance partly to see where the white pine, the Eastern stuff of which our houses are built, grew, but that on this and a previous excursion into another part of Maine I had found it a scarce tree; and I asked him where I must look for it. With a smile, he answered that he could hardly tell me.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Moral choices do not depend on personal preference and private decision but on right reason and, I would add, divine order.”
—Basil Hume (b. 1923)