Appeal No. 2000-2080
Application 09/287,226
Appellants' argument5 that the bitstream is not an abstract
data structure because it evolves, is not cogent. Merely because
bits in a word change over time does not mandate that they are
not an abstraction. Furthermore, claim 2 does not provide for
any change in the bitstream, and provides the order of bits in a
bitstream without any recitation of it being in use, or otherwise
in transformation.
Therefore, we find that Appellants' bitstream syntax as
claimed is only an abstraction and per se does not produce a
"useful, concrete and tangible result." Therefore, we find that
claim 2 recites non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 2 and recites a fourth group
of bits, in addition to the three groups of bits recited in claim
2. Therefore, this claim falls for the same reasons set forth
above for claim 2. In addition, we note that Appellants have not
separately argued this claim, and have grouped it6 with claim 2.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
5 Brief, page 3.
6 Brief, page 3.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007