Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
Group B (rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Appellant states that each of claims 8 and 13 recites two computing
devices connected by a network as well as the transfer of information from one
computing device to another over the network. As such, appellant argues that
claims 8 and 13 recite more than just an abstract idea. Further, appellant argues
that the examiner’s rationalization that these limitations do not recite a
meaningful use of technology is improper. See brief pages 9 and 10.
In response the examiner asserts relies upon the physical transformation
test to determine that the claims are not directed to statutory subject matter.
We disagree with the examiner’s reasoning. As stated supra, the physical
transformation test of Dimond v. Diehr is one of the many tests that can be used
to determine if a claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
However, it is not determinative as to whether the claim is directed to non-
statutory subject matter. In this case dependent claim 8 recites limitations
directed to method including a registrar computing device and a merchant
computing device and a network. These computing devices receive information
over the network. Claim 13 contains similar limitations. Clearly, these claims are
directed to a method performed on a machine, as such, the claims are not drawn
to an abstraction and do not fall within one of the aforementioned § 101 judicial
exceptions. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007