Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
menu” -- without more -- merely describes the goals of the concept (i.e.,
visually representing the future program action).
Although the dissent states that the specification is solely directed to a
computer-implemented invention,14 we find the specification to not be so
limiting. Indeed, the specification makes clear that the disclosed future
program action indication display is merely an exemplary embodiment and
illustrative—not the sole implementation as the dissent suggests. See
Specification ¶ 0045.15 In our view, such a broad, sweeping statement in the
specification hardly limits the invention to a machine implementation, let
alone a computer implementation.
The dissent concludes that the steps recited in claim 1 constitute a
statutory process where data is transformed by a machine, specifically
interacting with a computer-implemented process and display.16 But the
dissent’s argument is effectively premised on a single preferred embodiment
described in the specification.
To support the conclusion that the recited method steps of claim 1 are
“computer implemented” -- a term that appears nowhere in the claim17 -- the
14 See Dissent, at 33 (emphasis added).
15 See also Specification ¶¶ 0016-17 (noting that numerous specific details
are not required to practice the invention; functions can be modified or
removed and still be within the spirit and scope of the invention) (emphasis
added).
16 Dissent, at 34.
17 The dissent also notes, somewhat surprisingly, that “[i]f independent
claim 1 were to recite the claimed method is ‘computer implemented,’ I
believe it would ‘look’ more statutory, but that alone may not be sufficient.”
Dissent, at 33-4. On the contrary, such a recitation would not merely exalt
form over substance as the dissent seems to suggest, but would actually
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013