Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
Appellant argues, reply brief at page 3, that:
The claims at issue relate to a test computer
program utilizing high level mathematics for
verifying an operation or defect to be able to
control the development of an industrial system
(described in terms of numerous fields of
technology, science and medicine, where those
numerous fields are symbolically represented within
the mathematics) by virtue of test results obtained.
A calculated result is used for decision making in
the control process. Such clearly provides a useful,
concrete and tangible result.
We agree with the appellant’s position. The claims in
each instance recite a useful, concrete and tangible result.
For instance, see claim 27, steps 5 and 6. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 15 through 17, 22, 23, 27,
37, 38, 41 through 43, and 45 through 53 under 35 U.S.C. §
101.
With respect to claims 30 through 36, final rejection,
paper no. 23, appellant argues, brief at page 17, that:
“[c]laims 30-36 define the invention as an information carrier
including a computer-readable medium having a program stored
therein.” In response, the examiner states, answer at page 5,
that: “MPEP Section 2106 . . . states that ‘when a computer
program is recited in conjunction with a physical structure,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007