Appeal 2006-2107
Application 09/969,833
concrete, and tangible result. Thus, the claimed medium falls outside the
scope of § 101.
Additionally, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 1, we conclude the medium of claim 21 covers (“preempts”) every
substantial practical application 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.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has failed to establish that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1-22 are not patentable.
VI. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner, rejecting claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
rwk
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560
24
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Last modified: September 9, 2013