Appeal No. 1998-2263
Application No. 08/692,612
format and interpreted in light of the structure and materials recited in that specification to
further define the claimed invention. Here, claims 28 and 36 are directed to a nonspecific
process which is not written in means- plus-function format so as to invoke the sixth
paragraph of Section 112. Nor are the method steps in step-plus-function format.
From our review of the disclosed and claimed invention and the relevant citation by
the examiner (specification, at page 8), we find that the claimed invention is directed to any
and every process for evaluating and modifying distances between objects in circuit
design using a programmed computer as described throughout the specification at pages
4-13. However, we find that this computer-based process has a practical application in
the technological arts which produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result" and is,
therefore, directed to statutory subject matter. See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 47 USPQ 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and
AT & T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 50 USPQ2d 1447 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Since the claimed invention is directed to a practical application in the
technological arts, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 28 and its dependent claims.
Similarly, claims 34, 35, and 36 are directed to a practical application in the technological
arts and we will not sustain the rejection of these claims.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007