Opinion ID: 1320748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Patentable Subject Matter of the Asserted Claims of the '801 and '187 Patents

Text: Appellants also challenge the Commission's finding that the asserted claims of the '801 and '187 patents recite patentable subject matter. Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 951. At issue are claim 1 of the '801 patent, as well as claims 2 and 11, both of which depend from claim 1. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals comprising: providing pseudoranges that estimate the range of the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites; providing an estimate of an absolute time of reception of a plurality of satellite signals; providing an estimate of a position of the GPS receiver; providing satellite ephemeris data; computing absolute position and absolute time using said pseudoranges by updating said estimate of an absolute time and the estimate of position of the GPS receiver. Also at issue is Claim 1 of the '187 patent. That claim recites: 1. A method, comprising: estimating a plurality of states associated with a satellite signal receiver, the plurality of states including a time tag error state, the time tag error state relating a local time associated with said satellite signal receiver and an absolute time associated with signals from a plurality of satellites; and forming a dynamic model relating the plurality of states, the dynamic model operative to compute position of the satellite signal receiver. The '187 patent is a continuation-in-part of the '801 patent. The ALJ held that the asserted method claims are tied to a specific machinea GPS receiver and therefore found them directed to patentable subject matter. See Initial Determination, slip op. at 174-75, 205-06. After the Initial Determination, but before review by the Commission, this court decided In re Bilski. In Bilski, we held that [a] claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. 545 F.3d at 954. We also held that the machine-or-transformation test has a further aspect: the use of a specific machine or transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope to impart patent-eligibility. Id. at 961 ( see also Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., 581 F.3d 1336, 1342-43 (Fed.Cir.2009)). We agree with the Commission that the claims in question satisfy this test. [10] We have defined a machine as a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2009) (quoting In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A GPS receiver is a machine and is integral to each of the claims at issue. Claim 1 of the '801 patent is expressly directed in its preamble to calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver. '801 patent col.12 ll.28-29. It also refers to computing absolute position by updating an estimate of position of the GPS receiver, providing an estimate of the time at which a GPS receiver receives a plurality of satellite signals, and computing the position of the GPS receiver. Id. col.12 ll. 28-40. Further, claim 1 requires pseudoranges that estimate the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites. Id. col.12 ll.31-32. Pseudoranges, which are the distances or estimated distances between satellites and a GPS receiver, can exist only with respect to a particular GPS receiver that receives the satellite signals. Claim 1 of the '187 patent is similarly tied to a GPS receiver. It requires the estimation of states that are associated with a satellite signal receiver, and the formation of a dynamic model... to compute [the] position of the satellite signal receiver. See '187 patent col.20 ll.46-54. It is clear that the methods at issue could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver; indeed without a GPS receiver it would be impossible to generate pseudoranges or to determine the position of the GPS receiver whose position is the precise goal of the claims. We also think that the presence of the GPS receiver in the claims places a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. We are not dealing with a situation in which there is a method that can be performed without a machine. Contrary to appellants' contention, there is no evidence here that the calculations here can be performed entirely in the human mind. Here, as described, the use of a GPS receiver is essential to the operation of the claimed methods. In conclusion, we hold that the claims at issue are properly directed to patentable subject matter as they explicitly require the use of a particular machine (a GPS receiver) and could not be performed without the use of such a receiver. AFFIRMED