Hiroyuki Iwahashi , Yoshiki Nishioka , and Mitsuhiro Hakaridani applied for a patent for an autocorrelation unit for use in com puters for pattern recognition, in this case to aid in voice recognition.
To achieve this type of pa t tern recognition, computers must perform a lengthy multiplication cycle that requires intricate circuitry and a costly multiplier unit. The computer hard ware inolved in this process is also large and cumbersome.
The purpose of the new invention is to streamline the multiplication cycle. The elimina tion of the mu l tiplier and the intricate circuitry is made possible by an algorithm that allows the computer to obtain the needed result by detouring the time-consuming multiplication cycle and using instead the electronic equiv a lent of a multiplication table.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the patent application, and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences upheld that decision. Both concluded that the alleged invention was nothing more than an algorithm and could not therefore be patented.
The inventors appealed the decision, arguing that the algorithm is simply part of the ap paratus, which altered the operation of the computer and was therefore subject to patentability. Can apatent be rejected solely on the argument that the invention involves an algorithm? Explain.
In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370 (Fed. Cir.).