Appeal No. 1997-1238
Application 08/169,570
computer program per se. Claims 1 through 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Van de Lavoir.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer
for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 29 are
anticipated by Van de Lavoir. Furthermore, we do not agree
with the Examiner that claims 17 through 24 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, second paragraph, as
being directed to a computer program per se.
The Examiner states on page 5 of the Examiner's
answer that the claimed invention is unclear as to whether
claims 17 through 24 claim a computer program per se or a
computer program embodied on a computer readable medium. In
particular, the Examiner argues that the phrase "computer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007