Appeal No. 2006-2228
Application No. 10/231,678
My conclusion that a "signal" does not fit within any of the four
categories of § 101 is consistent with In re Bonczyk, 10 Fed. Appx. 908 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (unpublished) ("fabricated energy structure" does not correspond to
any statutory category of subject matter and it is unnecessary to reach the
alternate ground of affirmance that the subject matter lacks practical utility) and
with the Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility, 1300 Off. Gaz. Patent and Trademark Off. (O.G.)
142, 152 (Nov. 22, 2005), in the section entitled "Electro-Magnetic Signals."
C. CONCURRENCE
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given I agree, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 35, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
for failing to recite statutory subject matter is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
ALLEN R. MacDONALD ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
JS/pgc
-14-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007