Appeal 2007-1696
Application 10/230,745
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the Examiner’s conclusion.
Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the
descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They
are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not
"acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any
structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program
and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer
program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-
readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element
which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the
computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer
program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. MPEP
§ 2106.01; See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
A series of steps which is not tied to a particular machine or
apparatus, and which does not transform physical subject matter to a
different state or thing, does not meet the statutory definition of a “process”
and is not patentable subject matter. Ex parte Lundgren, 76 USPQ2d 1385,
1401 (Barrett, J, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part).
ANALYSIS
Appellants note, and the Examiner concedes, that Peck does not teach
creating or implementing a substitute edit request that differs from the
request made by the user. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013