Appeal No. 2006-0533
Application 09/838,420
appellants’ positions, and to the Answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
Because we regard all claims on appeal, claims 1
through 11, as both fatally indefinite under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and subject to rejections for non-statutory
subject matter within 35 U.S.C. § 101, the examiner’s rationale
to reject only claim 11 under both of these bases is expanded
upon and encompassed by our reasoning which follows. We
therefore denominate the following as new grounds of rejection
within 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
Claims 1 through 11 are rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite. From our study
of independent claim 1 on appeal, it appears that there is a
significant disconnect between the elements set forth in the
preamble of this method claim and the subject matter of the body
of this claim. There is no positively stated but only at most an
inferential implementation of the claimed invention on a computer
system. The end of claim 1 merely recites “an electronic
spreadsheet” and not the spreadsheet of the preamble. Similarly,
the one or plurality of cells in the body of the claim is not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007