Appeal Number: 2007-0133
Application Number: 10/223,466
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's final rejection1 (mailed May 4, 2004) and answer (mailed Jun. 14,
2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (filed
Oct. 13, 2005) and reply brief (filed Jul. 7, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1 through 40 rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
The examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed
invention is not within the technological arts and because presenting ideas on a
tangible medium such as a chart does not, by itself, bring the invention within the
scope of patentable subject matter. (Final Rejection 2).
The appellant contends that the process claims 1-15 and 31-38 contain concrete
steps and the apparatus claims 16-30 and 39-40 contain elements used in processes
that contain concrete steps that result in a tangible description of the optimal sleep
and wake time of a user. The appellant argues that the claims therefore provide a
useful, concrete and tangible result and thus are directed toward statutory subject
matter. (Br. 11-31, responding to each claim individually).
1 The examiner’s answer refers back to the final rejection for the rejection rationale.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013