Appeal No. 97-0777
Application 08/083,587
The portion of the disclosure directly relating to the
calculation of the air discharge temperature, specification
pages 10 through 12 and Figures 16 and 17, is relatively
straightforward in setting forth the model upon which the
calculation is based. It is not apparent, nor has the
examiner cogently explained, why such disclosure, while
admittedly lacking in mathematical detail, would not have
enabled a person of ordinary skill in the art to derive and
use a method and system for performing the calculation without
undue experimentation. Thus, the examiner has failed to meet
his initial burden of advancing acceptable reasoning
inconsistent with enablement.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 14.
The standing 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1
through 14 rests on the examiner's determination that these
claims are directed to a non-statutory mathematical algorithm
(see pages 3 and 4 in the final rejection).
Congress intended statutory subject matter under § 101 to
include anything under the sun that is made by man. Diamond
v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980). Nonetheless, there
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007