Appeal No. 2006-0688
Application No. 09/838,425
Julia Kelly, “Using Microsoft® Excel® 97,” 3rd edition, Que Corp., 1998, pages 124-131,
138-144, 154-189, 209-210 and 337-343.
H. M. Deitel et al. (Deitel), “C++:How to Program,” 2nd edition, Prentiss Hall, 1994,
pages 10, 106-110, 147, 243-244, 256-262, 448, 473-479, 483-485, 707-730, 981-987
and 1043-1045.
Microsoft® Computer Dictionary, 4th edition, Microsoft Press, 1999, pages 29, 56-58,
79, 229, 272, 420 and 434.
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement.
2. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as
the invention.
3. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
4. Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the teachings of Kelly in view of Deitel. The Microsoft® Dictionary has been used to
supply definitions of various computer terms.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the prior art rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007