Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
In short, the claim merely recites data per se – nonstatutory
descriptive material. See id. We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the
data structure’s containing a second portion that specifies how the first
portion of the data should be displayed. Like the first portion of the data, the
recited formatting information in the second portion is merely descriptive
material that, without more, simply fails to define structural and functional
relationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the
invention to permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized.
Regarding claims 19-22, 24, and 25, the claims merely recite mark-up
languages. But for the reasons discussed above, these claims fail to recite
any structural and functional relationships between the data structure and
other claimed aspects of the invention that permit the data structure’s
functionality to be realized. Accordingly, the claims merely recite
non-statutory descriptive material.
For at least these reasons, claims 18-22, 24, and 25 fail to recite
statutory subject matter under § 101.4
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner’s rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-32 is
affirmed. Moreover, we have entered a new grounds of rejection under
4 Our conclusion does not apply, however, to claim 23 calling for arranging
the first and second portions in separate files. Since claim 23 minimally
recites a structural and functional relationship between the data structure and
other claimed aspects of the invention, the claim meets the threshold for
statutory subject matter under § 101.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013