Appeal No. 2000-1195
Application No. 08/668,737
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims
1 through 15, and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
of claims 16 through 20.
According to the examiner (answer, page 3), the claimed
invention “contains no practical application,” and shows “a
series of steps which are grounded in the abstract idea of
performing mathematical manipulations of data.”
Appellant argues (brief, pages 10 and 11) that:
[T]he term “sales probability” is not merely just an
abstract idea or just a number that requires additional
interpretation, but instead is a real, useful and
concrete result that has practical application. Namely
it provides an answer to a user of the present
invention as to whether a sale will or will not likely
to occur. Thus, the generation of the sales
probability, in and of itself, is the practical
application of Appellant’s invention. This
interpretation is clearly consistent with the holdings
of both State Street Bank and AT&T.
. . . .
In support of the Appellant’s position that the
claimed invention has practical utility, Appellant
presently encloses a 1.132 declaration from Mr. Roni
Raitosola, a partner at CORRTEC, LLC. CORRTEC, LLC is
a company that is engaged in the business of
developing, marketing and selling banking software
applications to clients. CORRTEC, LLC has recently
purchased a software application from the Appellant
that embodies the Appellant’s claimed invention for use
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007