Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
27, 37, 38, 41 through 43, and 45 through 53 (brief at page
12, et seq.) that the examiner’s analysis fails to consider
the claims as a whole and that the examiner misunderstands the
definition of
“industrial system”. Appellant continues, brief at page 13,
that: “the rejection, [sic] erroneously relies on the now
reversed State Street Bank . . . ” Appellant further argues,
Id. at page 14, that: “[t]he examiner looks only to the
operation of the algorithm and fails to look to the entire
process claims.” The examiner responds, answer at page 4,
that: “[t]he application contains no disclosure relating to
means of implementing any of the end uses recited in claims
. . . . The claims are essentially directed to the method of
calculating numbers to determine the unsatisfiability of input
terms in a mathematical algorithm.” The examiner further
responds, Id., that: “[i]n State Street Bank, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the claims
involved produced ‘a useful, concrete and tangible result’.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007