Appeal No. 1999-2714
Application No. 08/504,562
Co. v Signature Financial Group, Inc, 149 F.3d 1368, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir.
1998), Cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 851 (1999) and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications,
Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 50 USPQ2d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the present data structures
recited in the claims are clearly functionally interrelated in the computing process and
that the structures are not merely non-functional data. (See second reply brief at pages
7-9.) We agree with appellant that the recited claim limitations in the rejected claims are
directed to “a useful, concrete and tangible result” wherein the data stored in the
memory or in the computer is more than mere non-functional descriptive material, and it
is stored on some tangible medium so as to be more than an abstract idea. Therefore,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection under non-statutory subject matter.
DOUBLE PATENTING
Appellant argues that appellant filed a terminal disclaimer (TD) with the second
reply brief and the file jacket indicated that the TD has been entered, processed and the
TD indicated on the file jacket. Therefore, we deem this rejection to be overcome.
Alternatively, we do not find that the examiner has provided the requisite analysis in the
answer to properly set forth a prima facie rejection under obvious-type double
patenting.
35 USC § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007