Appeal No. 2006-2765
Application No. 10/372,160
An “optimal solution” for one problem may not be an “optimal solution” for
another problem. For these reasons, the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1
through 11 and 28 through 30 is sustained.
The lack of enablement rejection of claims 1 through 30 is reversed
because we see no need for a per se finding of lack of enablement that
dovetails onto the nonstatutory rejection, and because the examiner has
failed to provide a cogent reason for such a lack of enablement rejection.
Turning next to the nonstatutory rejection of claims 1 through 30, the
examiner made the following findings (final rejection, page 4):
[T]he Examiner finds that Applicant manipulated a
mathematical “problem” or “function” using pure
“mathematical algorithms” to find an abstract
“optimal solution.” Said mathematical algorithms
may further be said to represent laws of nature.
(The Examiner notes that the Supreme Court has
held that “mathematical algorithms” and “laws of
nature” are per se nonstatutory.) The Applicant
does not set forth nor claim a practical application
for the invention. As shown herein, mere global
optimization of an abstract “function” or
“problem” to find an abstract “optimal solution”
does not fulfill the requirement that a “useful,
concrete and tangible” result be accomplished.
Since the claims are not limited to exclude
such abstractions, the broadest reasonable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013