Appeal No. 1998-2848
Application 08/398,862
ETCs are stored, it must be presumed that Appellant intended
not to claim the medium.
Appellant quotes claims 1, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 38 and
concludes (Br15-16): "Clearly, none of the above claims is
directed to data structures representing descriptive material
per se. [Paragraph] For example, Claim 1 essentially recites
a system comprising a disassociated computer program
consisting of electronic trading cards." Appellant makes no
effort to address why a computer program and an ETC computer
code segments are not descriptive material "per se" under the
Guidelines and the MPEP, that is, Appellant has not shown how
the claims (especially claim 1) recite something physical.
Appellant quotes from the specification and states
(Br16): "The concept of the conventional trading card is well
known, and, in doubt, the physical appearance of the
electronic trading card would have to be assumed to be similar
to that of a conventional trading card." The claims define
the invention. It is Appellant's responsibility to claim what
he regards as his invention and we assume the claims reflect
Appellant's intent. Here there is nothing physical about what
is claimed in claim 1 and no physical appearance is recited.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007