Appeal No. 2006-1595
Application No. 09/798,484
shared library name for the C model that is loaded), and Page 28, lines 1-10
(distinguishing the C model portions for stand-alone and mixed-language
simulation).
In view of this evidence as well as the passages noted by appellants,2 we
conclude that the specification adequately describes the claimed invention with
sufficient particularity such that the skilled artisan -- a computer software
engineer with substantial industry experience -- would reasonably conclude that
the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The examiner reiterates
that the independent claims recite “form over substance” with no tangible result
and are therefore non-statutory [answer, pages 11 and 12]. Regarding
independent apparatus claims 1 and 7, the examiner asserts that the recited
logic elements “suggest only software components which do not add any
statutory matter” [answer, page 11]. Regarding independent claims 22 and 23
(reciting a computer-readable medium), the examiner notes that because the
specification did not state specifically what constitutes the claimed computer-
readable medium, the medium could be, among other things, a carrier wave
signal transmitting the computer program from a server to a client or via a
network [answer, page 12]. The examiner essentially reasons that because (1)
2 See Brief, pages 2 and 3.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007