Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
“navigating” in claim 3 also seems to me to be statutory computer-
implemented process.
Claim 3 recites:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the future program actions menu
comprises features selected from the group consisting of a return
feature, allowing user to navigate back to preference menu, and a help
feature, allowing user to navigate to several dependent help
categories, the features being able to be selected by a user.
This to me is a computer implemented process.
Claim 6 recites :
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the selected at least one future
program action includes actions selected from the group consisting of
recording the selected at least one future program, notifying the user
of the display schedule of the selected at least one future program,
and preventing the display of the selected at least one future program.
In dependent claim 6, I find the actions of recording, notifying and
preventing the display are more than a mere abstractions, but computer-
implemented process steps.
With respect to independent claim 23, I find the actions of the user to
be more than merely non-functional descriptive material so as to be
essentially printed matter without structure or implementation. For the user
to act with respect to the images, I find that there must be an implicit
computer implementation/process. For the above reasons, I cannot agree
with the majority’s rejection.
CONCUR-IN-PART AND DISSENT-IN-PART
35
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013