Appeal No. 2000-1608
Application 08/953,998
the claims separately on appeal. Appellant stated that the
claims in the group do not stand or fall together (Br4) and
argued the claims separately in the anticipation rejection
(Br9-10). The Examiner should have addressed the dependent
claims in connection with the anticipation rejection. However,
since we reverse the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of the
dependent claims is also reversed. Thus, it is not necessary to
remand for further action by the Examiner.
35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner's sole reasoning is that the claims are
directed to an algorithm, specifically, a sputtering simulation
algorithm and that no application of the invention is claimed
(EA4). The Examiner states that the substitute specification
discloses the need and use for the simulation results and that
incorporation of the use may overcome the § 101 rejection (EA6).
Appellant argues that any step-by-step process involves an
"algorithm" in the broad sense of the term (Br5). It is argued
that the § 101 proscription, to the sense it still exists, is
narrowly limited to mathematical algorithms in the abstract
(Br5). Appellant argues that the present claims recite a process
having a practical application and producing a useful, concrete,
and tangible result and is statutory subject matter (Br5).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007