Appeal No. 94-0570
Application 07/389,382
In the present case, Claims 24 and 25 recite the use of
read only memory and random access memory as part of computer
hardware means for performing the required numeric processing.
The examiner correctly points out that the specification does
not mention any read only memory or random access memory, but
merely mentions a particular computer.
The examiner concedes that the disclosed computer had
read only memory and random access memory. Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 23) at 3. We find that those
skilled in the art took for granted that the disclosed
computer had such memories. In other words, the
specification’s identification of an IBM compatible personal
computer employing a 386 processor conveyed to the skilled
artisan that applicant had invented a computer having the
recited memories. Therefore, under Wilder, the rejection will
not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 18-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being drawn to non-statutory subject matter is not sustained.
The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007