Appeal No. 2000-1195
Application No. 08/668,737
examiner (answer, page 4) that the broadly recited method steps
of claims 1 through 15 are “not within the ‘technological arts’”
and do not satisfy the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appellant’s arguments (reply brief, page 2) to the contrary
notwithstanding, the declaration submitted by Mr. Raitosola fails
to prove a “practical application” of method claims 1 through
15 because the claims on appeal are not limited to a computer
“software program” application. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claims 1 through 15 is sustained because “the
resulting correlation is merely an abstract idea without a
‘practical application’” (answer, page 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007