Appeal 2007-1762
Application 10/218,245
conclude the Examiner has not met the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 25 as being unpatentable over Bilbrey. Because claims
26-33 depend upon claim 25, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims as being unpatentable over Bilbrey. Because we have
reversed the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 44 as being
anticipated by Bilbrey (see discussion supra), we will also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 47 as being unpatentable over Bilbrey, noting
that claim 47 depends upon independent claim 44.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we set forth new
grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims 2, 8 and 44. In
addition, we set forth new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for claims 19-23, 25-33, 35-38, 40-45 and 47. The basis
for each is set forth in detail below.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 2, 8 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claim 2
If the “acts” of a claimed process manipulate only numbers, abstract
concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the foregoing, the acts are
not being applied to appropriate subject matter. In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290,
294-95, 30 USPQ2d 1455, 1458-59 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013