Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
Claims 27-32 are directed to a process and not to
printed matter or a computer program per se. The steps of
creating application code with certain properties, such as
transfer of control from a hook point to an embedded
training routine, is not the same thing as a computer
program per se. If the claims were to "a computer program
having instructions to do function X, instructions to do
function Y, etc." a rejection for not being within the four
statutory classes or a printed matter/computer program
rejection might be appropriate. However, in this case we
will not look beyond the process form of the claim. This
reason for the § 101 rejection is reversed.
In conclusion, the § 101 rejection of claims 27-32 is
reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner states (EA3):
In claim 1, what is meant by "where a course resides"?
No storage of a "course" is seen; nor storage at a
server. The phrase "wherein said course is in said
repository and at said servers" is vague - what is
meant by "in" and "at". [sic, ?]
As to "where a course resides," appellants argue that
the examiner has confused breadth with indefiniteness and
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007