Appeal No. 2000-1608
Application 08/953,998
abstract) because it is directed to calculation of real world,
physical phenomena: "calculating tracks of sputtered particles in
a sputtering arrangement" (fifth step of claim 1). This, we
conclude, is a "practical application" because it produces a
"useful, concrete and tangible result," the tracks of the
sputtered particles, not a mere number. That the calculated
tracks of the sputtered particles are not further applied to
calculate the shape of the area where the particles are deposited
does not make the method any less physical or useful. We
conclude that claims 1-6 are directed to statutory subject matter
as a process under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rejection of claims 1-6
under § 101 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner stated that "ejected direction of a particle"
in claim 1 is grammatically incorrect (Paper No. 4, p. 4) and
should be replaced with "direction of an ejected particle" (FR3).
Appellant argues that the language is specific and definite
and easier to refer to than to designate "direction of ejected
particle," "direction of incident ion," etc. (Br5-6).
The Examiner states that "ejected direction of a particle"
in claim 1 is grammatically incorrect because "ejected" is a
verb, not a noun, and the "direction" is not being ejected (EA6).
The Examiner finds the phrase ambiguous (EA6).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007