Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
indicate and “display” their course selections (e.g., by circling, underlining,
or highlighting the courses).
This example is merely one of many examples of non-machine
implemented methods that are preempted by the scope of claim 1. Not only
can all steps be performed solely by a person, the claimed “future program
information display,” “future program actions menu,” and “indicator” can all
comprise merely textual or symbolic information (i.e., non-functional
descriptive material).
In essence, claims 1-4 and 6-8 merely recite the display of non-
functional descriptive material and therefore fail to recite statutory subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Interim Guidelines for Examination of
Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Interim
Guidelines), 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142, 151 (Nov. 22, 2005).
(“‘[F]unctional descriptive material’ consists of data structures and computer
programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer
component. . . . ‘Non-functional descriptive material’ includes but is not
limited to music, literary works and a compilation or mere arrangement of
data.”).
Rejection of Claims 23-28 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In essence, the claims
merely call for a “display” of four images. Significantly, the claim does not
require computer or machine implementation. For similar reasons as noted
previously in connection with claim 1-4 and 6-8, claims 23-28 merely recite
the display (i.e., visual representation) of non-functional descriptive material
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013