Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
I interpret claim 1 to be in means-plus-function format, where the
term "component" is equivalent to "means," because "component" does not
define any structure to perform the function. Technically, a human being
cannot constitute a "means." Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1116, 1123 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Therefore, I interpret claim 1 to implicitly require that the functions
are performed by a machine. The structure corresponding to the
"components" ("means") is apparently a programmed general purpose
computer. In view of the present state of § 101 law, it is difficult to state a
reason why subject matter that is nominally within § 101 as a machine
should be considered unpatentable unless it merely performs an abstract idea
such as a mathematical algorithm. The claim as a whole does not appear to
merely perform an abstract idea and appears to satisfy the "useful, concrete
and tangible result" test of State Street. I would not reject claim 1.
pgc
AMIN. TUROCY & CALVIN, LLP
24TH FLOOR, NATIONAL CITY CENTER
1900 EAST NINTH STREET
CLEVELAND OH 44114
51
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Last modified: September 9, 2013