Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
concrete, and tangible results. Appellants further argue that the step of
displaying the organizational subtree recited in claim 1 is a useful, concrete,
and tangible result (Br. 18-19).
Regarding independent claim 6, Appellants argue that the processing
of various information and the subsequent visualization of the processed
information (which is used to aid in the management of a meeting), is a
tangible result. Appellants assert that the result is extremely useful because
it allows various information to be processed, and a meeting to be conducted
more effectively. Appellants conclude that the visualization is concrete and
tangible because it results in the physical display of information (Br. 19).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that the claimed
invention sets forth functional descriptive material but fails to set forth
physical structures or materials comprised of hardware (e.g., a computer), or
a combination of hardware and software, within the technological arts to
produce a “useful, concrete and tangible” result (Answer 19). The Examiner
asserts that the methods of claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are directed to mental
constructs and/or abstract ideas, or a computer program, per se. As such, the
Examiner concludes that the claims are not limited to statutory subject
matter and are therefore non-statutory.
With respect to independent claim 1, we note that the Board held in
Ex parte Lundgren, 76 USPQ2d 1385 (BPAI 2005) (precedential) that there
is no judicially recognized separate “technological arts” test to determine
patent eligible subject matter under §101 (in part, because there is no way to
determine what is meant by “technological”). Id. at 1388. We further note
that claim 1 explicitly recites “a computer” that at least performs the recited
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013