Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
The portion of the claim "for controlling access to at least one column of
data" merely describes an intended use and does not narrow the scope of the
claim. Also, the portion of the claim "the information including
cryptographic information associated with the encrypted column of data"
does not disclose any functional interrelationship, only an association. For
these reasons, the subject matter of these claims are deemed to be
nonstatutory.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations that
follow.
At the outset, we note that Appellant’s Brief is non-compliant with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 wherein the Summary of the Claimed Invention does not
include a summary of each of the independent claims. Rather than remand
the case at this time or immediately prior to the oral hearing, we will address
Appellant’s Brief in the present condition.
35 U.S.C. § 101
While Appellant’s arguments in response to the Examiner’s rejection are
brief, Appellant factually distinguishes the factual situations in In re
Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re
Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellant’s argue
that the database management system is more than merely a database. From
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013