Appeal 2006-2107
Application 09/969,833
23. Appellant’s method claims are not limited to any particular art
or technology, to any particular apparatus or machinery, or to any particular
end use.
24. Appellant’s method claims cover any use of the claimed
method in a processor coupled to a memory, i.e., a general-purpose digital
computer of any type.
IV. ANALYSIS – EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
A. Whether Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
(1)
Introduction - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Four categories of patentable subject matter are enumerated in
35 U.S.C. § 101:
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.
(2)
Examiner’s Prima Facie Case
The Examiner prima facie case is set forth at pages 4-9 of the Answer.
(3)
Appellant’s Arguments in the Brief
With respect to independent method claim 1, Appellant argues
“Claim 1 . . . recites steps which do not involve use of any particular abstract
idea or mathematical algorithm.” (Br. 5). Further, Appellant argues “there
is no particular mathematical algorithm involved [in the claimed method]”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013