Appeal No. 2001-0052
Application No. 09/229,216
We turn, first, to the rejection of claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. 101.
The examiner’s rationale, in toto, is that “[t]he only
subject matter which applicant regards as new and seeks to
patent, ‘film identifying indicia’ on a well known ‘flash
reflector,’ is deemed to be printed matter which ‘is rejected
as not being within the statutory classes.’ See M.P.E.P.
706.03.”
The examiner’s rejection is clearly misplaced since two
of the statutory classes of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101 are
machines and articles of manufacture. The instant claim is
directed to a “one-time-use camera...,” which is clearly a
machine and/or an article of manufacture. Thus, we will
reverse the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
It appears that the examiner’s rejection is based on
“printed matter.” However, the examiner’s rationale dissects
the alleged printed matter from the remainder of the claimed
subject matter and holds that since the printed matter belongs
to a non-statutory class of invention, then so too must the
claimed subject matter. Such a rationale is contrary to law.
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007