Appeal No. 2006-0533
Application 09/838,420
We also expand the examiner’s rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include all claims on appeal, claims 1
through 11. In view of the nature of the positions we have set
forth earlier with respect to the way we view method independent
claim 1 on appeal, this claim essentially sets forth an abstract
intellectual concept or data construct of mathematical/Boolean
variables that are set forth in the abstract around the concept
of a table. There is such a significant analytical disconnect
between the subject matter that is conventional structure in the
art in the preamble and that which is specifically recited in the
body of the method independent claim 1 on appeal as to clearly
indicate that even independent claim 1 as a whole, and its
corresponding independent claim 10 are directed to nonstatutory
subject matter per se. At least with respect as well to the so-
called system independent claim 10, there is no corresponding
means disclosed in the structural or even in the programming
instruction sense to correspond to the claimed means elements in
this claim. The dependent claims further refine the abstract
concepts of independent claim 1 to include the concept of names,
status values, the actual computation of a data value, the
ability to change or otherwise alter any of these variables, and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007