Ex Parte Freeman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2011

11235344 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/235,344 09/26/2005 Clay Freeman 131715.00005 5142
33649 7590 07/13/2011
Mr. Christopher John Rourk
Jackson Walker LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 6000
DALLAS, TX 75202
EXAMINER
OSBORNE, LUKE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CLAY FREEMAN and MARCEL BROEKMAAT
____________
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344
1

Technology Center 2100
____________

Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
Filed on September 26, 2005. This application is a continuation in part of
application 10/956,902, which was filed October 1, 2004. The real party in
interest is Vico Software Kft. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner‟s final rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a system and method for generating variations in
schedules and estimates from a building design model instead of requiring
such steps to be performed independently. (Spec. ¶ [0001].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A system for designing, estimating and scheduling
building construction, comprising:

a three dimensional design system that generates three
dimensional design data using one or more elements in a spatial
tree structure;

one or more recipes associated with each element, each
recipe having one or more associated method components, each
method component having one or more associated resource
components;

a cost estimate system generating cost estimate data
using the recipes;

a schedule system generating schedule data using the
recipes; and

an estimate system applying one or more variances to one
or more of the recipes, methods or resources.

Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Thomas Froese et al., “Industry Foundation Classes for Project
Management—A Trail Implementation,” (Mar. 1999) pp. 1-20 (hereinafter
“Froese”).

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Froese.
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that since the function of “generating”
software code in the claimed “systems” amounts to software operating on a
processor, independent claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101. (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5.)
2. Appellants contend that Froese‟s disclosure of installing studs
in a wall, which also has separate labor and material resources associated
therewith, does not describe “one or more recipes associated with each
element, each recipe having one or more associated method components,
each method component having one or more associated resource
components,” as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 11-12.)
Appellants also argue that the spatial tree outlined by the Examiner
unreasonably construes independent claim 1 to cover something not
disclosed in the present Specification, and in a manner that is inconsistent
with the plain meaning of the claimed terms. (Reply Br. 5-6.)
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

4
Further, Appellants allege that since Froese‟s labor and material
resources are unrelated to the claimed “recipes,” Froese does not describe “a
cost estimate system generating cost estimate data using the recipes,” as
claimed. (App. Br. 12.) Additionally, Appellants contend that Froese‟s
disclosure of using multiple cost types amounts to different costs for
different components, and does not describe “variances,” as claimed. (Id.)
Therefore, Appellants argue that Froese does not describe “a schedule
system generating schedule data using the recipes,” and “an estimate system
applying one or more variances to one or more of the recipes, methods or
resources,” as claimed. (Id.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner finds that since Appellants‟ Specification
discloses that the claimed “systems” can be construed as merely software,
independent claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101. (Ans. 22.)
2. The Examiner finds that the claimed terms “elements,”
“recipes,” “method components,” and “resource components” can be
broadly, but reasonably construed as a spatial tree structure with the
following hierarchy: element—recipe—method component—resource
component. (Ans. 23.) In particular, the Examiner finds that Froese‟s
disclosure of a schedule, which includes a set of three activities for each wall
(i.e., install metal studs, hang drywall, and apply taping), describes “one or
more recipes associated with each element, each recipe having one or more
associated method components, each method component having one or more
associated resource components,” as recited in independent claim 1. (Id.)
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

5
Further, the Examiner finds that since a recipe is defined as a set of
instructions for making something from various ingredients, Froese‟s
disclosure of installing metal studs amounts to the claimed “recipes.” (Id. at
23-24.) Therefore, the Examiner finds that Froese describes “a cost estimate
system generating cost estimate data using the recipes,” as claimed. (Id.)
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Froese‟s disclosure of estimating a
task, scheduling a task, and using multiple cost schedules describes “a
schedule system generating schedule data using the recipes,” and “an
estimate system applying one or more variances to one or more of the
recipes, methods or resources,” as claimed. (Id. at 24.)

II. ISSUES
1. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
independent claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter? In
particular, the issue turns on whether the claimed “system for designing,
estimating, and scheduling building construction, comprising: a three
dimensional design system…a cost estimate system…a schedule
system…and an estimate system” can be construed as software per se.
2. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Froese anticipates independent claim 1? In particular, the issue turns on
whether Froese describes the following claim limitations:
(a) “one or more recipes associated with each element, each recipe
having one or more associated method components, each method component
having one or more associated resource components;”
(b) “a cost estimate system generating cost estimate data using the
recipes;”
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

6
(c) “a schedule system generating schedule data using the recipes;”
and
(d) “an estimate system applying one or more variances to one or
more of the recipes, methods or resources.”

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants’ Specification
FF 1. Appellants‟ Specification states that:
System 200 can be implemented in hardware, software, or a
suitable combination of hardware and software, and can be one
or more software systems operating on a general purpose
processing platform. In one exemplary embodiment, a software
system can include one or more lines of code, subroutines,
procedures, branches, routines, user readable code, machine
readable code, source code, object code, a general purpose
system that interfaces with one or more specific purpose
systems, logic flows, or other suitable systems.

(Spec. ¶ [0033])(emphasis added.)
FF 2. Appellants‟ Specification also states that:
System 1200 includes materials estimate system 216 and design
phase system 1202, variance estimating system 1204, alternate
material system 1206 and recipe interface system 1208, each of
which can be implemented in hardware, software or a suitable
combination of hardware and software, and which can be one
or more software systems operating on a general purpose
processing platform.

(Id. at ¶ [0093])(emphasis added.)
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

7
Froese
FF 3. Froese‟s figure 1 depicts a test case that creates a schedule and
a cost estimate for walls at two levels of detail. (3: ¶ [04].) According to
Froese, one output of the test case is a schedule, which includes a set of three
activities for each wall: install metal studs, hang drywall, and apply taping.
(4: ¶ [01].) Froese discloses that the other output is the cost estimate
consisting of material and labor breakdowns. (Id.)
FF 4. Froese discloses object costs and cost context. (6: ¶¶ [03]-
[04].) For cost estimating, Froese discloses assigning different types of costs
to objects such as work tasks or products. (Id.) For example, Froese
discloses providing a numerical cost value along with information about
whether the unit price of a work task includes material purchases,
transportation, material use wastes, equipment uses (operational and rental
costs), labor costs, taxes, general contractor mark-up, etc. (Id.)
FF 5. Froese discloses scheduling tasks. (10: ¶¶ [04]-[06].) In
particular, Froese discloses planning and scheduling an object by first
defining an IfcWorkPlan and creating an IfcWorkSchedule. (Id. at ¶ [05].)
Froese discloses that the IfcWorkPlan features three instances of
IfcWorkTask as defined in the test scenario for each of the two wall
segments: install metal studs, hang drywall, and apply taping. (Id. at ¶
[06].)
FF 6. Froese‟s figure 4 depicts an object diagram of a scheduling
scenario, sample work schedule, and resource objects. (11: ¶ [01]-[02].) In
particular, Froese discloses distributing traditional schedule activity
information between IfcWorkTask, IfcScheduleElement, and
IfcScheduleTimeControl objects. (Id. at ¶ [02].) Froese discloses that an
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

8
IfcScheduleTimeControl object has attributes that define various start and
finish dates and float, both actual and scheduled dates, etc. (Id.)
FF 7. Froese‟s figure 5 provides a user interface that displays the
object model in the computer system. (12: ¶ [01].)
FF 8. Froese discloses using multiple cost schedules. (17: ¶¶ [02]-
[04]. In particular, Froese discloses using cost schedules for grouping all
types of cost information. (Id. at ¶ [02].) For example, Froese discloses that
different cost schedules could exist for unit cost databases like metal studs,
or cost estimates for specific projects. (Id.) Froese‟s figure 11 depicts using
two different cost schedules for modeling crew costs on the test case
scenario. (Id.)

IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Claim 1
Independent claims 1 recites, inter alia, “[a] system for designing,
estimating, and scheduling building construction, comprising: a three
dimensional design system…a cost estimate system…a schedule
system…and an estimate system.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Appellants‟
Specification states that the claimed “systems” may be construed as
software, such as software systems that include one or more lines of code,
subroutines, procedures, branches, routines, user readable code, machine
readable code, source code, object code, etc. (FFs 1 and 2.) In light of this
statement, we find that the system claim and corresponding “three
dimensional design system…cost estimate system…schedule system…and
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

9
[] estimate system” may be construed solely as software.
2
Further, since the
claimed software is not embodied in a computer-readable media, it
represents computer listings per se, which are incapable of causing
functional change in a computer. See Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360-61; see
also MPEP § 2106.01(I). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
independent claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Ans. 3-4,
22.) It follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
Claims 2-8
For the same reasons as set forth above, we find that dependent claims
2-8 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.

2
“The four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of
patentable subject matter. If a 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). A claim to a data structure
per se is non-statutory. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360-61 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). “Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable
media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they
are not capable of causing functional change in the computer.” Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.01(I) (Rev. 8, July 2010)
(citing Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361). Similarly, a claim to a computer
listing per se is non-statutory. Id. “[C]omputer 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.” Id.
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

10
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia:
[1)] one or more recipes associated with each element, each
recipe having one or more associated method components, each
method component having one or more associated resource
components; [2)] a cost estimate system generating cost
estimate data using the recipes; [3)] a schedule system
generating schedule data using the recipes; and [4)] an estimate
system applying one or more variances to one or more of the
recipes, methods or resources.

First, we consider the scope and meaning of the claimed terms
“recipes,” “method components,” and “resource components,” which must
be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants‟
disclosure. As explained in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
Id. at 1054. See also Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that
“claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”).
Appellants‟ Specification states that:
Resources 102 describe items that are required for each
element, such as materials, labor, equipment, subcontractors,
maintenances, or other items that can be defined based on
consumption of predetermined units, such as volumes of plaster
or concrete, man hours for painting or carpentry, sheets of
drywall or plywood, numbers of nails, tubes of caulk, cartons of
tile, linear feet of lumber, or other suitable units.

Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

11
Methods 104 describes construction activities that are needed to
create the components associated with an element. In one
exemplary embodiment, each method associated with an
element can be linearly ordered as a series of steps or
procedures that need to be performed….

Recipes 106 associate the resources and methods of an element
with each other and with other elements. Recipes associated
with an element can be tangible (such as for construction of a
wall, floor, column, wiring, plumbing, or other tangible
features) or intangible (such as insurance, permits, inspections,
financing, or other intangible features)….

(Spec. ¶¶ [0025]-[0027].)
Our reviewing court states, “the „ordinary meaning‟ of a claim term is
its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Upon reviewing Appellants‟ Specification for context, we conclude
that the claimed terms “recipes,” “method components,” and “resource
components,” may be broadly, but reasonably construed as follows: 1)
“recipes” may be associated with a construction activity, such as the
construction of a wall; 2) “method components” may be a series of steps or
procedures that need to be performed for the construction activity; and 3)
“resource components” may be the volume of material needed or man hours
required for the construction activity.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Froese discloses a
test case scenario that creates a schedule and cost estimate for the
construction of walls in a building. (FF 3.) Froese discloses that the test
case scenario outputs a schedule pertaining to three activities: install metal
studs, hand drywall, and apply taping. (Id.) Froese also discloses that the
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

12
test case scenario outputs a cost estimate consisting of material and labor
breakdowns. (Id.)
Consistent with our claim construction above, we find that Froese‟s
disclosure of a test case scenario for constructing walls in a building
describes the “one or more recipes,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Moreover, since Froese‟s disclosure of installing metals studs, hanging
drywall, and applying tape amounts to a series of steps or procedures that
need to be performed in order to construct walls in the building, we find that
Froese describes the “methods components,” as claimed. Further, we find
that Froese‟s disclosure of the material and labor breakdowns for
constructing walls in the building describes the “resource components,” as
claimed. Consequently, we find that that Froese describes “one or more
recipes associated with each element, each recipe having one or more
associated method components, each method component having one or more
associated resource components,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Next, Froese discloses estimating costs by assigning different types of
costs to work tasks or products. (FF 4.) In particular, Froese discloses
providing both a numerical cost value and information pertaining to the unit
price of a work task, such as the materials purchased, transportation costs,
equipment used, labor costs, taxes, general contractor mark-up, etc. (Id.)
We find that Froese‟s disclosure of estimating the costs associated with the
various work tasks or products used for the construction of walls in the
building describes “a cost estimate system generating cost estimate data
using the recipes,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, Froese discloses scheduling tasks for the construction of
walls in a building by defining a work plan that includes various work tasks.
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

13
(FF 5.) Froese discloses scheduling various work tasks, such as the
installation of metal studs, hanging drywall, and applying tape. (Id.) We
find that Froese‟s disclosure of scheduling various work tasks for the
construction of walls in the building describes “a schedule system generating
schedule data using the recipes,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Finally, Froese discloses using cost schedules in order to group all
types of cost information. (FF 8.) In particular, Froese discloses using two
different cost schedules in order to model crew costs for constructing walls
in a building. (Id.) We find that Froese‟s disclosure of providing variables
for estimating the costs of using two different crews to construct walls in the
building describes “an estimate system applying one or more variances to
one or more of the recipes, methods or resources,” as recited in independent
claim 1. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Froese anticipates independent claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-20
Appellants merely reiterate what the disputed claim limitations recite
and make general allegations as to the teachings of Froese. (App. Br. 13-16,
18-19; Reply Br. 6-9.) Such reiterations and general allegations do not
amount to separate patentability arguments. See Ex parte Belinne, No.
2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants‟ arguments
“do not … explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error.”
Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843 at *4. Therefore, Appellants have not shown
reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claims
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

14
2-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-20.
3
It follows that Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that Froese anticipates dependent claims 2-5,
7, 8, 10-13, and 15-20.
Claim 6
Appellants contend that Froese‟s disclosure of a start and finish date
does not describe a high or low bound for one or more variables. (App. Br.
13-14; Reply Br. 7-8.) Therefore, Appellants argue that Froese does not
describe “a variance estimating system receiving one or more variable for an
associated recipe, method, or resource and an associated high and low bound
for the associated variable,” as recited in dependent claim 6. (App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 8.) We do not agree.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Froese discloses
both a scheduling scenario and a sample work schedule. (FF 6.) In
particular, Froese discloses distributing schedule activity information
between work tasks, schedule elements, and schedule time control objects.
(Id.) Froese disclose that the schedule time control objects have attributes
that define various start and finish dates. (Id.)
We find that Froese disclosure of a scheduling works tasks by using
schedule time control objects that have attributes which define various start

3
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir.
2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the
examiner‟s rejection by requiring Jung to „identif[y] a reversible error‟ by
the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability
onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed
above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the
burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . „[R]eversible error‟
means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did
wrong . . . .”).

Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

15
and finish dates amounts to providing a variable range with a high and low
bound (i.e., start and finish date) for each work task. Consequently, using
Froese‟s test case scenario of constructing walls in a building, we find that
Froese describes estimating the cost of a work task, such as using two
different crews, by providing a variable range with a high and low bound
(i.e., the potential start and finish data submitted by each crew). Thus, we
find that Froese describes the disputed claim limitation. It follows that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Froese
anticipates dependent claim 6.
Claim 9
Appellants contend that Froese fails to disclose the method steps
recited in independent claim 9 in the order required by the claim. (App. Br.
14-15; Reply Br. 9.) We do not agree.
We note that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into
method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the
method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the
method steps, and the specification does not directly or implicitly require a
particular order. See Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, since independent claim 9 does not explicitly
or logically impose a specific order on the performance of the claimed
method steps, and the present Specification does not directly or implicitly
require a particular order, Froese does not need to describe such method
steps in any specific order to anticipate independent claim 9. Therefore, we
find Appellants‟ argument unpersuasive. It follows that Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Froese anticipates independent
claim 9.
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

16
Claim 14
We begin our analysis by noting that Appellants fail to set forth any
substantive arguments regarding whether Froese describes a structure that is
equivalent to the structure invoked by the means-plus-function limitations
recited in independent claim 14. (App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 9-13.) Rather
Appellants direct their arguments to identifying the corresponding structure
in the present Specification (i.e., a special purpose computer programmed to
perform the disclosed algorithm) to support the means-plus-function
limitations recited in independent claim 14. (Id.)
Nonetheless, we agree with Appellants that the “means for” language
found in independent claim 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
(App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 9-13.) We construe the disputed limitations to
cover the corresponding structure described in Appellants‟ Specification and
its equivalents. See In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (en banc).

Accordingly, Froese need not disclose the exact structure
disclosed in Appellants' Specification to anticipate independent claim 14.
Independent claim 14 is anticipated by Froese as long as Froese discloses an
equivalent structure.
Appellants‟ Specification discloses that:
FIGURE 1 is a diagram of system 100 for integrated five
dimensional analysis of construction costs and risk analysis in
accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention. System 100 allows architectural models to be
designed to assist with estimating costs and generating
schedules for construction of buildings or items, such as sports
arenas, airports, or other projects.

(Spec. ¶ [0023].)
Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

17
Further, Appellants‟ Specification discloses that “FIGURE 13 is a flow
chart of the method 1300 for providing variables for estimates in accordance
with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.” (Id. at ¶ [0099].)
We agree with Appellants that the present Specification discloses a
computer system and flowchart algorithm, which provides sufficient
structure to implicate a special purpose computer programmed to perform
the disclosed algorithm.
4
(App. Br. 16-18.) Similarly, Froese discloses a
user interface that displays an object model in a computer system. (FF 7.)
Consequently, since Froese‟s computer system is capable of providing
designs, schedules, or estimations pertaining to the construction of walls in a
building (FFs 3 and 7), we find that Froese‟s computer system is tantamount
to an equivalent structure that performs functions similar to Appellants‟
special purpose computer. Thus, we find that Froese teaches the means-
plus-function limitations recited in independent claim 14. It follows that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Froese
anticipates independent claim 14.

4
See Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc. 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (“For computer-implemented means-plus-function claims where the
disclosed structure is a computer programmed to implement an algorithm,
„the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the
special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm”)
(citations and quotation marks omitted.). As such, the application must
disclose “enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under
§ 112, ¶ 6” or a disclosure that can be expressed in any understandable terms
(e.g., a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flowchart). Id. But “[s]imply
reciting „software‟ without providing some detail about the means to
accomplish the function is not enough.” Id. at 1341-42 (citation omitted).

Appeal 2009-011632
Application 11/235,344

18
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-8 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
§101.
2. Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

VI. DECISION
1. We affirm the Examiner‟s decision to reject claims 1-8 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
2. We affirm the Examiner‟s decision to reject claims 1-20 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD