Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
can be employed as a computer component in the computer memory thus
becoming functional descriptive material (Specification 9:10-14).
The “medium” before us differs from the “memory” comprising a “data
structure” found in Lowry. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031,
1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In Lowry, the court stated, “More than mere abstraction, the
data structures are specific electrical or magnetic structural elements in a memory.”
The court concluded, “Lowry’s data structures are physical entities that provide
increased efficiency in computer operation” and “[t]hey are not analogous to
printed matter.” Id. “In sum, the [data structures in memory] perform a function.”
Id.
Despite Appellant’s explanation that the printed matter will eventually be
converted (by scanning, compiling, and interpreting) into a functional computer
component, the claim before us does not contain that component, nor are these
three steps functions performed by the claimed “medium.” Rather, we merely find
printed matter (Specification 9:10).
We conclude that even using Appellant’s definition of logic, claims 11-15
are directed to a mere abstraction and do not perform a function. Thus, they fall
outside the scope of § 101.
(4)
Rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 6, we conclude
the system of claim 16 covers (“preempts”) every substantial practical application
39
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013