Appeal 2007-3623
Application 10/035,747
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
35 U.S.C. § 102
Our decision relies on different reasoning with respect to the Huang
patent than that set forth by the Examiner. Due to our new reasoning, we
designate our decision as a new ground of rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 101
We reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, using our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claims 1-20 are directed to a data structure per se and as such these
claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Appellant should
compare his claims 1-20 to the statutory “memory containing a stored data
structure” found in Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031(Fed. Cir. 1994).
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
We reject claims 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
using our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claims 31 and 32 are indefinite because “the floating point
instruction” of claim 31 lacks an antecedent basis.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid
termination of appeal as to the rejected claims:
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013