Appeal 2006-2109
Application 10/680,678
1 JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, concurring:
2 I concur with the majority and add the following analysis.
3 First, conspicuously absent from claim 1 is any reference to a device, such as
4 a computer, which effects the claimed process. We have previously held there is
5 no requirement for the Appellant to recite any such device, but mention it here
6 because it bears on the broad scope of claim 1. Ex parte Carl A. Lundgren, 2004
7 WL 3561262, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Bd.Pat.App. & Interf., 2004) “the Federal
8 Circuit has held that a process claim that applies a mathematical algorithm to
9 "produce a useful, concrete, tangible result without pre-empting other uses of the
10 mathematical principle, on its face comfortably falls within the scope of § 35
11 U.S.C. § 101…", citing to AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d
12 1352, 1358, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
13 Second, also key to interpreting claim 1 is the meaning of “reduced meal
14 portion”. The excerpt in the Specification relied on by the Appellant to allegedly
15 establish a definition for “reduced meal portion” (See, Specification 4:22-24,
16 5:12:9-12) describes the feature in the context of, “For example…” and “…may
17 comprise…” (Specification 4: 23, 24), which we take as a reasonable indicator of a
18 description of plural embodiments rather than a definition of a particular claim
19 element. In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 893 F2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
20 Thus, without being constrained by a definition tied to the specification, and/or
21 by an electronic/mechanical device limitation, the term “reduced meal portion” in
22 claim 1 is open to broad reasonable interpretation which would include the known
23 mental process involved with a person giving to a charity, such as the Helbling
24 patron.
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013