Appeal 2006-0272
Application 10/024,964
that the claims are directed to the broad “abstract idea” of redacting
documents (according to authorization levels associated with viewers)
because the sweeping language of the claims covers any and every possible
manner of performing the steps. One may not patent every “substantial
practical application” of an idea or algorithm because such a patent “in
practical effect would be a patent on the [abstract idea] itself.” Gottschalk v.
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972).
DECISION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejection of all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 5,
7-11, 14-18, and 21-26 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.
tdl/ce
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013