Appeal 2006-2228
Application 10/231,678
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner has erred in rejecting
claims 35, 37, and 38, as failing to recite statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101?
ANALYSIS
We review Appellant’s Brief anew and follow the position originally
set forth in the concurrence to the majority opinion of the original decision.
Our analysis is fully set forth infra. Our decision does not rely on the
requirements set forth in the majority opinion and renders moot Appellant’s
arguments in the Request. Due to our new reasoning, we designate our
decision as a new ground of rejection.
Claim 35 on appeal is directed to a “program product” comprising
“(A) a common session manager that stores data in the global data cache
. . . ,” “(B) an authorization mechanism . . . ,” and “(C) computer-readable
signal bearing media. . .” The “common session manager” and
“authorization mechanism” are software on the “signal bearing media.”
(Spec. 8:12-22, 10:21-24, and 11:1-4). The “global data cache” is not
included in the “program product.” Rather, the “global data cache” is
merely to be utilized at some future time by the common session manager
software on the computer-readable signal bearing media.
Appellant has admitted at pages 2-3 of the Reply Brief filed May 9,
2006, that claims 35, 37, and 38 are intended to include intangible
embodiments, as follows:
The word “signal” does appear in the claims, but taken in
context, the term signal is part of a phrase “signal bearing” that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013