2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Proudler 10/643,306 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name:
DADA, BEEMNET W
NEW REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Statutory Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. § 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. Moreover, our reviewing court has stated that “[t]he four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This latter case held that claims directed to a “paradigm” are nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as representing an abstract idea. Thus, a “signal” cannot be patentable subject matter because it is not within any of the four categories. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357. Laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185. A claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, "Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment." Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). The unpatentability of abstract ideas was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192 (June 28, 2010).
Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01
Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Miller 10/318,659 LEBOVITZ 103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
Examiner Name:
GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kuramochi et al 10/976,779 HANLON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
Examiner Name:
FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Examiner Name:
FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Hermentin et al 10/682,199 GRIMES 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, BAO THUY L
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, BAO THUY L
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/009,380 KIMLIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
Examiner Name:
EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/009,380 KIMLIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
Examiner Name:
EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Boubez et al 09/758,112 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
HAMILTON, LALITA M
Examiner Name:
HAMILTON, LALITA M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Burke et al
AFFIRMED
REHEARING
No comments :
Post a Comment