Appeal No. 1997-1238
Application 08/169,570
program" found in the preamble defines a set of instructions
for execution on a computer. The Examiner also states that
the body of the claim recites means plus function language
which defines at least a set of instructions embodied on a
computer-readable medium to perform the recited functions.
The Examiner argues that these claims are properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner also
argues on page 5 of the Examiner's answer that claims 17
through 24 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Examiner states that a computer program per se does not define
any structure and functional interrelationships that permit
the computer program's functionality to be realized.
On page 4 of the brief, Appellants argue that claims
17 through 21 are drawn specifically to a computer program
product which, by its nature, must be performed on or with the
aid of a computer. Appellants also point out that the claims
recite means plus function and are adequately supported by
their written specification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007