Appeal No. 95-0633
Application 07/728,426
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
reasons relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that claims 22-25 are directed to statutory subject matter
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. We are also of the
view that claims 22-25 recite the invention in a manner which
complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 22-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject
matter in the form of a mathematical algorithm. The brief and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007