Appeal No. 1999-2609
Application No. 08/730,289
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Mar. 25, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 12, filed Feb. 16, 1999) and reply
brief (Paper No. 14, filed May 24, 1999) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is directed to a process and apparatus
performed by a data processor (brief at page 2) and that the claimed invention is
directed to a useful, concrete and tangible result which defines a practical application
within the technological arts. (See brief at pages 13-14.) We agree with appellants.
Appellants argue that the real estate property entity of the claimed invention is no less
physical, tangible or concrete than the share portfolio of the hub and spoke system in
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368,
1374-75, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998). (See brief at page 14.) We agree
with appellants that the claimed computer implemented process and apparatus
producing a final estimate for the value of the real estate entity has real world value and
produces a useful, concrete and tangible result.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007