Appeal No. 1996-2986
Application 08/348,625
consideration, in reaching our decision, 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 1, 2, 5, 25, 26, and 29 are directed to
statutory subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
101. We are also of the view that the collective evidence
relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 1-11 and 21-29. Accordingly,
we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 25,
26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-
statutory subject matter in the form of a mathematical
algorithm. With respect to the mathematical algorithm
exception, the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007