Appeal No. 2001-2696
Application No. 08/950,230
also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to
support the asserted conclusion. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Cliff, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 11, nor of claims 2-4, 8, 10,
and 12 dependent thereon.3
We make the observation that, while Appellants’ disclosure is directed3
generally to a computer-based implementation of a method of modeling human
behavior, the human behavior modeling method set forth in claim 5 is not
limited to any computer-based implementation. Further, the language of claim
5 raises a question as to whether the claimed method is directed merely to an
abstract idea that is not tied to a technological art, environment, or machine
which would result in a practical application producing a concrete, useful,
and tangible result to form the basis of statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101. A review of the prosecution history in this application
reveals that the issue of non-statutory subject matter was not raised by the
Examiner. Since we have no non-statutory subject matter rejection before us,
we decline to rule on the merits of any such rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007