Appeal No. 1999-2714
Application No. 08/504,562
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter.2 Claims 50-125 stand
rejected under obvious-type double patenting. Claims 101-108, 110, 117 and 118 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for not being supported by the
disclosure. Claims 124 and 125 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to distinctly claim and particularly point out the invention. Claims
50-70, 109, 111, 113-116, and 124-129 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Metzner. Claims 71-100, 112, and 119-123 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner in view of Queen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 34, mailed Apr. 17, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 27, filed Jun. 22, 1998), first reply
brief (Paper No. 29, filed Dec. 31, 1998) and second reply brief (Paper No. 35, filed Jun.
24, 2002) for the appellant's arguments there against.
OPINION
2 We note that the examiner has not rejected claim 96 under this rejection, and we note that
there is no memory medium or apparatus to embody the methodology. Appellant’s filed a supplemental
brief after the oral hearing (Paper No. 54, filed Aug. 28, 2002) to address the panel’s question at the
hearing whether independent claim 96 was directed to statutory subject matter. Appellant’s representative
requested a one week period to submit a response. In light of the numerous definitions of the term “file”
and a showing of corresponding usage in the specification in accordance with these definitions in the
computer related technologies, we withdraw our question with respect to claim 96.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007