Appeal No. 2001-1911
Application No. 08/825,492
patentable subject matter even though a law of nature, natural
phenomenon, or abstract idea would not, by itself, be entitled to
such protection.”
As basically reasoned by the examiner, we find that the
subject matter embraced by the claimed ATM cell per se of claim
21 on appeal sets forth a data structure or an abstract idea
which does not fall within the statutory categories of a process,
machine, manufacture or composition of matter of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 21 merely claims, broadly, a header and a payload, both of
which are well known in the art as revealed by our study of the
specification as filed as well as the disclosure of Takashima.
Claim 21 recites the ATM cell itself, as a mere data structure or
a mere representation of data per se. Moreover, this recited ATM
cell in claim 21 is not a physical structure or a manufacture
within 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ATM cell of claim 21 is not used in
a merging method, as recited in independent claim 1 on appeal,
nor is it used in an apparatus or machine as in the network of
independent claim 14 on appeal.
It is thus apparent that we are unpersuaded by appellants’
arguments in the brief and reply brief as to this issue.
Appellants’ recognition of PTO policy at pages 6 and 7 of the
principal brief on appeal as set forth in MPEP section 2106,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007