Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
system”) (Claim 42). Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 42 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Breslau.
ANALYSIS - NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
A. New Ground Of Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
(1)
Introduction
We use our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to enter a new
ground of rejection of claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56. The basis for each is
set forth in detail below.
(2)
Rejection of claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1 reproduced supra is representative.
(a)
Additional Claim Construction
For purposes of this decision, under a broadest reasonable
interpretation, Appellant’s claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56 do not require
computer-implementation. Indeed, when we look to the Specification for
context, Appellant discloses: “The software module may have a number of
components, including headers, sections of various types, and string tables,
described in more detail below” (Specification 6, ll. 27-28). Therefore, we
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013