Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 Claim 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Holden.
2 Claim 29 depends from claim 28, whose rejection we have not sustained,
3 supra. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 29 under
4 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Holden.
5
6 Claims 30 and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Holden and
7 Alaia.
8 Claim 30 depends from claim 28, and claim 32 contains a similar limitation to
9 that of claim 30, whose rejection we have not sustained, supra. Accordingly we do
10 not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
11 as obvious over Holden and Alaia.
12
13 NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
14 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the following new grounds of
15 rejection:
16 Claims 5-7 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
17 toward non-statutory subject matter. In particular, these claims are to methods of
18 collecting bids and applying rules, an abstract idea that lacks a useful, concrete,
19 and tangible result.
20 The scope of patentable subject matter under section 101 is broad, but not
21 infinitely broad. “Congress included in patentable subject matter only those things
22 that qualify as ‘any … process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
23 any … improvement thereof….’” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1358, 31
24 USPQ2d 1754, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 101) (emphasis added).
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013