Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
interacting with a computer implemented process and display with an
indicator to the user. I find these limitations to be sufficient to qualify as
statutory subject matter rather than a mere abstract and disembodied idea as
maintained by the majority.
I find the majority’s rejection to be overly general and does not
address all of the specific inter-related limitations in their rejection and is
silent with respect to how this is a reasonable interpretation in light of the
disclosed invention. From my review of the disclosed invention, I do not
find any language which hedges the computer implementation or implies
that Appellants intend to claim more than the disclosed computer
implemented system and method. Therefore, I cannot agree with the
majority’s claim interpretation to manufacture a non-statutory invention with
the non-computer interpretations of the computer limitations from one that is
disclosed and claimed as statutory subject matter. Therefore, I find that the
majority has taken an unreasonable interpretation of the instant claim
limitations and recited actions, when read in light of the Specification for
context.
I do not find any over generalized descriptions in this Specification
with which to stretch the limits of reasonable claim interpretation. While the
decision has good analysis of the case law, there is not enough citation to the
Specification or to the relevant prior art definitions in the application of the
case law to the claim language.
Additionally, I find that the recitation of an “icon” in claim 2 seems to
be similar to monitor in claim 5 which was found to be statutory subject
matter. This is clearly not a college registration process done in paper.
Additionally, the “help feature” and “return feature” in combination with
34
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013