Appeal 2007-1696
Application 10/230,745
Claims 10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not being
directed to statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 10 recites “[a] document editing program
configured to run in the browser of a computer system,” the claim containing
several further means-plus-function limitations of the program. At no point
is the document editing program embodied on a computer-readable medium.
There are no structural and functional interrelationships defined between the
computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit
the computer program's functionality to be realized. No physical subject
matter is transformed to a different state or thing. As a result, claim 10 and
dependent claims 17-20 do not meet the statutory definition of a process, or
any other statutory class of invention, and do not constitute eligible subject
matter under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, and 12-24.
On the record before us, claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12-16, and 21-24 have not
been shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, and 12-24 is
reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013