Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
THE REFERENCES
Huemoeller US 5,855,006 Dec. 29, 1998
Barnett US 6,369,840 B1 Apr. 9, 2002
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller.1
Claims 9, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller in view of Barnett.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 101
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10
as being directed to non statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appellants argue that independent claim 1 does not recite a
mathematical algorithm and does not preempt a mathematical principle.
Appellants assert that the constructing steps of claim 1 are directed to useful,
1 We note that the Examiner erroneously includes dependent claim 9 in the
rejection heading on page 4 of the Answer as being unpatentable over
Huemoeller. However, we find claim 9 is only rejected as being
unpatentable over Huemoeller in view of Barnett (See Answer 15). We
consider the inclusion of claim 9 in the rejection heading on page 4 of the
Answer as a typographical error.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013