Appeal No. 1998-1734
Application No. 07/508,024
No references are relied upon.
Claims 46-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. The examiner contends that the
claimed function of “maintaining a configuration space data
structure” is indefinite because the meaning of “maintaining” is
unclear. Further, he contends that the claimed function of
“receiving signals” is unclear because “it is not understood how
such an encoded computer program could perform the function of
‘ . . . receiving signals . . . ’” (answer-page 4).
Claims 1, 30 and 41-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The examiner
contends that the claimed invention is directed to a mathematical
algorithm with insignificant pre- and post-solution activity.
Reference is made to pages 4-12 of the answer for the examiner’s
complete explanation of the rejection.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 46-53 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we will not sustain this
rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007