Appeal No. 2001-2403
Application No. 08/851,040
OPINION
The Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to non-
statutory subject matter, in particular, to a method of doing
business (final rejection, page 2). The Examiner adds that the
claims require a human to visualize how products are displayed,
which requires the thought process of a human to select a store
based on the facility layout (id.). The Examiner concludes that
“the inclusion of the human thought process in the method of
doing business fails to fall within the safe harbors of business
methods” (id.).
Appellant responds by asserting that the claims are not
drawn to a method of doing business (brief, page 5).
Additionally, Appellant asserts that the mere inclusion of a
human-performed step does not make a process claim non-statutory
(id.). Appellant further argues that since the claimed subject
matter does not include a computer algorithm, the Examiner’s
reliance on MPEP § 2106 is misplaced (brief, pages 5 & 6).
In response, the Examiner argues that the claims require the
use of human thought and movement, such as a human entering into
a parking facility (answer, page 3). The Examiner further points
out that the claims include purchasing of an item and therefore,
set forth a business method (answer, page 4). The Examiner also
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007