Appeal No. 2001-2403
Application No. 08/851,040
steps are directed to a method of doing business or do not fall
withing one of the safe harbors recognized for computer related
inventions. The analysis, in fact, should include a clear
delineation of whether the claimed process steps constitute a
practical application of a process which produces “a useful,
concrete and tangible result.” See State Street, 149 F.3d at
1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1600-01. The Examiner has not provided any
such analysis in support of the alleged lack of utility of the
claimed subject matter within the technological arts.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 21-26 and 28-36 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 cannot be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007