Ex Parte Mantena et al - Page 7

            Appeal 2007-0770                                                                                  
            Application 09/752,330                                                                            

        1   PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter.  See                         
        2   Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1384, 217 USPQ at 403; see also Diamond v. Diehr,  450 U.S.                   
        3   at 191, 209 USPQ at 10.  However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight                    
        4   to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between                
        5   the descriptive material and the substrate.   See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-                
        6   84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338, 70                    
        7   USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and or recent final decision in Ex parte                    
        8   Curry 2005-0509 (Board. Pat. App. Inter. 2007, available at                                       
        9   http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?flNm=fd050509.pdf) (Affirmed, Rule 36,                      
       10   CAFC 06-1003, June 2006).                                                                         
       11                                       ANALYSIS                                                      
       12          As discussed above in the principles of law section we hold that the “non-                 
       13   functional descriptive material” doctrine applies to computer implemented                         
       14   inventions. Further, we note that Appellants have not presented any argument or                   
       15   analysis functionally relating the limitation “entitled price” to the method, nor do              
       16   we find any.   For this reason alone, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us                 
       17   of error in the Examiner’s obviousness double patenting rejection of claims 1                     
       18   through 48.  Nonetheless, as discussed above we find that claim 1 of Mantena                      
       19   patent does make obvious sending a request for an entitled price.                                 
       20          Appellants’ reply brief does not address the claim limitation of “real time”               
       21   with respect to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, but rather                       
       22   addresses it only with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                        
       23   Nonetheless, as it was argued in the Brief we will address the issue as it applies to             
       24   both rejections.  Appellants present an extrinsic definition of the term as “a level of           
       25   computer responsiveness that a user senses as sufficiently immediate or that                      
       26   enables the computer to keep up with some external process.”  Further, Appellants                 

                                                      7                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013