Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
JOSPEH L. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge
I concur-in-part and dissent-in-part.
35 U.S.C. § 102
I concur in the affirmance of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
35 U.S.C. § 101
I cannot join the majority in finding that the instant claims which the
majority has rejected are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
The majority goes through extensive evaluation of the case law and
controlling precedents. I agree with the majority’s general analysis, yet I
find that the merits of rejection when applied to the extensive case law
discussions is quite brief and silent as to the appropriate claim interpretation
with which to evaluate the instant claimed invention.
While the majority’s examples are creative in their claim
interpretation to find the instant claims non-statutory, it is the claim
limitations, when interpreted in light of the Specification and giving the
claims their ordinary and customary definitions in the relevant/pertinent art,
that define the claimed invention.
Here, I find the Specification to be solely directed to a computer
implemented invention for a future program action indication display
process. The majority has not identified where or how Appellants’
Specification permits such a broad and sweeping interpretation when there is
no hint of a non-computer implemented method envisioned therein. Nor has
32
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013