Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
Group C (rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Appellant asserts, on page 10 of the brief, that claim 23 recites “wherein
the registrar includes a registrar computing device having a database” and that
as such claim 23 is directed to statutory subject matter.
The examiner’s response to this argument is the same as discussed
above with respect to claims 8 and 13 and we similarly disagree with the
examiner’s rationale. Claim 23 recites a registrar computing device, clearly claim
23 is drawn to a method performed on a machine. As such, the claim is not
drawn to an abstraction and does not fall within one of the aforementioned § 101
judicial exceptions. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Group D (rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Appellant argues on pages 10 and 11 of the brief that claim 52 recites the
step of “communicating the product information and the owner information to a
replica manufacturer using a computing device” and as such is drawn to statutory
subject matter.
The examiner’s response to this argument, on page 7 of the answer, is the
same as discussed above with respect to claims 8 and 13 and we similarly
disagree with the examiner’s rationale. Claim 52 recites a using a computing
device to communicate product information, thus claim 52 is drawn to a method
performed on a machine. Further, claim 52, also recites the limitation of
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007