Appeal No. 96-2552
Application 08/161,816
treated as process claims. Claims 1 and 26 are not in means-
plus-function format. Appellant's independent claim 1 is
directed to "An intellectual property computer-implemented
system" and independent claim 26 is directed to "A computer
architecture." The claims include specific computer
components. For example, claim 1 recites "a first database,"
"a database access and collection device connected to be
responsive to said first database and accessing said first
database," "a second database," and "a comparison device
connected to be responsive to said database access and
collection device and to said second database." Claims 1 and
26 are drafted as "machine" claims and the examiner has not
explained how such claims could be treated as a process under
the relevant case law. Consequently, this is another reason
why the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 21-23, and 26 is
reversed.
Claim 27 is drafted in means-plus-function format. The
treatment of "means" claims as process claims has been
modified by State Street. The district court in State Street
construed the claims to be directed to a process, with each
"means" clause merely representing a step in that process.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007