Taner was decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond.
Taner’s claims were directed to a method of seismic exploration which simulated the response of subsurface earth formations to cylindrical or plane waves. An algorithm was directly recited in the claims.
In Taner, the CCPA distinguished between claims that are directed to “merely presenting and solving a mathematical algorithm,” which are not statutory subject matter, and claims that are drawn “to a process of converting one physical thing into another physical thing,” which are statutory subject matter.
The Court held that the claimed process involved taking one kind of “signal” and converting it into another kind of signal and that, thus, the claims set forth a process and were statutory within § 101.