Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
of the abstract idea. We conclude that the claim is so broad that it is directed to the
“abstract idea” itself, rather than a practical implementation of the concept. Thus,
the claimed process falls outside the scope of § 101.
Additionally, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 6,
we conclude the system of claim 16 does not apply its abstract idea to produce a
useful, concrete, tangible result.
Similarly, claims 17-20 merely require that anyone or anything determine if
the change is a single change, validate consistency (in some form) of the plan, or
select a specific effective date. For the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to claims 6 and 16, we conclude the systems of claims 17-20 fall outside the scope
of § 101.
C. New Ground Of Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(1)
Introduction
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sloan et al. (Sloan), U.S. Patent 5,146,067, issued September 8, 1992.12
(2)
Rejection of claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as we discussed
above in Section V. B.(3)(a), we have before us the classic “printed matter”
situation. We reiterate that the storage “medium” of claims 11-15 merely requires
being printed on paper (Specification 9:10). Also, we reiterate that the “logic” of
claims 11-15 merely requires textual information in the form of plural “systems of
12 Previously cited by the Examiner and provided to Appellant.
40
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013