Appeal No. 2003-0293
Application No. 09/472,197 Page 4
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse the
rejection of claims 85-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and affirm the
rejection of claims 85-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We begin with the rejection of claims 85-90 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being non-statutory. The examiner's position (answer,
page 3) is that the stored information is deemed to be non-
functional descriptive data that cannot exhibit any functional
relationship with the way in which computing processes are
performed and does not constitute a statutory process, machine,
manufacture or composition of matter, i.e., that the claims do
not recite functional, descriptive material, only stored data
that represents identifier information. The examiner adds that
when non-functional descriptive data is recorded on some computer
readable medium, it is not structurally and functionally
interrelated to the medium but is merely carried by the medium.
Appellants assert (brief, page 4) that claim 85 recites “the
information stored in the first and second fields being readable
by at least one processor to automatically deliver the targeted
advertisement to the first computer.” Appellants argue (id.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007