Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
were found to be nonstatutory because (Answer, paper number
11, page 2) :
The claims are not statutory even though the
invention is a series of steps performed on a
computer because the steps do not perform
independent physical acts or manipulate data
representing physical objects or activities to
achieve a practical application. In fact, the
claimed invention merely solve [sic, solves] a
purely mathematical problem (i.e., segmenting an
equation into manageable blocks so as to solve a
mathematical problem) without any limitation to a
practical application.
Reference is made to the brief and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the rejections of claims 3 through 5 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appellant’s response (Brief, pages 7 through 10) to the
lack of enablement rejection is reproduced in toto:
As Appellant points out in his specification at
page 6, lines 8-20 and page 9, lines 8-19,
generation of a multiblock grid model is known in
the art and does not comprise part of Appellant’s
invention. Appellant is using one such known grid
generation tool to create the overlapping multiblock
grid model that makes the coupling method of the
present invention possible. Accordingly, Appellant
is providing herewith a copy of the cited reference.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007