Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
V. ANALYSIS - NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
A. Background
We use our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to enter a first new ground
of rejection of claims 6-20 and a second new ground of rejection of claims 11-15.
The basis for each is set forth in detail below.
B. New Ground Of Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
(1)
Introduction
On February 10, 2004, the Examiner rejected claims 6-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the “claimed steps . . . are abstract ideas, which can be
performed mentally without interaction of a physical structure.” That is, the result
of claims 6-10 of “providing for future rate changes” is not considered to define a
useful, concrete and tangible result. 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
In response, Appellant’s argued at page 12 of the Brief that the claims were
directed to a practical application because “the method, as claimed, produces a
concrete, tangible and useful result.” Appellant goes on to argue at page 13 that
“[i]mplementation of rate changes in customer care and billing centers are an
important feature for customers.” Appellant then argues at page 14 that the
subject method provides “versatility and does so in an efficient and fast manner of
execution.” Appellant then concludes that “the steps set forth in claims 6-10 do
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013