Software Patents Sample(6 months before October 2008) with rejections

Sl.No.	Patent/Publication No.		Date of Publication	Application Date	Date of Rejection	Rejection type	101 Rejection	102 Rejection	103 Rejection	112 Rejection
1	US20080235616A1	1	9/25/2008	12/6/2006	3/2/2009	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	Claims 1 - 1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hinckley et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 200410140984) in view of Kelts (US Patent Application Publication No. 200 110030667).	N/A
2	US20080235810A1	2	9/25/2008	7/18/2006	10/7/2008	102 rejection	N/A	Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ripley et al. (U. S. Publication No.: 200410205345 Al).	N/A	N/A
3	US20080235739A1	3	9/25/2008	#######	#######	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because computer programs per se cannot be patentable.	Claims 1-3, 10-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Dureau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 200310093806).	1. Claims 4-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dureau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 200310093806) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 200210059596). 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dureau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 200310093806) and Sano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 200210059596) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rowe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,623,613).	Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
4	US20080235429A1	4	9/25/2008	3/23/2007	12/5/2008	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 13 and 15 are directed to a program on a propagating signal13	N/A	Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landis et a1 WO-20051036358-A2 in view of Johnsen et a1 PN 7,293,129.	N/A
5	US20080235259A1	5	9/25/2008	3/23/2007	2/20/2009	101 and 103 rejections	1. Claim 1 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. Claim 9 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins-Rector et al. (U.S. Patent Number 6,188,398), ("Collins-Rector" hereinafter) in view of Dunn et al. (U.S. Patent Number 5,721,829), ("Dunn" hereinafter).	N/A
6	US20080235234A1	6	9/25/2008	6/5/2008	2/13/2009	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	Claims [I and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (U.S. Patent 5,768,519, also cited on the IDS dated 06/05/2008) hereinafter "Swift" and Vasic et al. (US 2003/0021 41 7 A1, also cited on the IDS dated 06/05/2008) hereinafter "Vasic", further in view of Holbrook (US 7,133,914 Bl, also cited on the IDS dated 06/05/2008) hereinafter "Hol brook".	N/A
7	US20080235189A1	7	9/25/2008	9/14/2007	6/11/2008	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-3, 5-1 8 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Lauffer, U.S. Patent No. 6,223,165 (hereinafter Lauffer).	Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lauffer as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Lanq et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,029,161 (hereinafter Lanq).	N/A
8	US20080235177A1	8	9/25/2008	3/22/2007	1/27/2009	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.lO1 because the language of the claim raises a question as to whether the claim is directed merely to an abstract idea that is not tied to a technological art, environment or machine which would result in a practice application producing a concrete, useful, and tangible result to form the basis of statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.	Claims 1, 9-1 1 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Lawrence et al. (US Patent No. 7,389,265 B2, hereinafter "Lawrence").	Claims 2-8, 12-1 3 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al. (US Patent No. 7,389,265 B2) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Ainsbury et al. (US Patent No. 6,078,924 A, hereinafter "Ainsbury").	N/A
9	US20080208853A1	9	8/28/2008	2/28/2007	4/2/2009	101, 102 and 112 rejections	Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Lipkin et al. (US 2005/0154699), hereafter referred to as Lipkinr699.	N/A	Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
10	US20080204773A1	10	8/28/2008	2/26/2007	3/19/2009	101 rejection	1. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-14 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. 2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 3. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venable et al. (6,972,867) in view of Kanamori et al. (4,929,978).	N/A	N/A	N/A
11	US20080201671A1	11	8/21/2008	2/16/2007	2/25/2009	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beausang et al, US Patent No. 5,696,771 in view of Higuchi, US Patent No. 7,299,437	N/A
12	US20080201587A1	12	8/21/2008	2/16/2007	2/26/2008	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims I, 3-8, 31-33, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ranganathan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 200510240786 Al.	1. Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ranganathan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 200510240786 Al, in view of Anderson, U.S. Patent No. 6,189,106 Bl. 2. Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RanganathanlAnderson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 200610149908 A1 . 3. Claims 9, 21, 22, 24, 34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RanganathanIAnderson in view of Kim, U.S. Patent No. 6,943,693 B2. 4. Claims 2, 11-20, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ranganathan in view of Anderson, U.S. Patent No. 6,189,106 Bl. 5. Claims 9, 10, 21, 22, 24,29, 30, 34, 35, 39, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RanganathanlAnderson in view of Kim, U.S. Patent No. 6,943,693 82.	N/A
13	US20080197846A1	13	8/21/2008	3/10/2008	#######	101 and 103 rejections	Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims I, 3, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hurd et al (US 5,657,757), and further in view of Haase et al (US 6,400,151).	N/A
14	US20080209365A1	14	8/28/2008	2/28/2007	10/1/2008	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	1. Claims 1-3, 6-1 2, 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Allen et al. [U.S. Patent 6,738,954 BI]. 2. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-1 2, 15-1 7, 20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Wisniewski et al. [U.S. Patent 7,346,470 B2].	Claims 4, 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen et al. or Wisniewski et al. in view of Foreman et al. [U.S. Patent 7,401,307 B2].	N/A
15	US20080205254A1	15	8/28/2008	5/30/2006	10/2/2008	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sako et al. (U.S. Patent 7,142,494).	Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Sako (U.S. Patent 7,142,494) in view of Ishiguro et al. (U.S. Patent 7,010,124) .	Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
16	US20080205122A1	16	8/28/2008	2/23/2007	6/3/2008	102 and 112 rejections	N/A	Claims 1-20 are, insofar as understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Min et al., 7,072,208.	N/A	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
17	US20080201357A1	17	8/21/2008	1/30/2008	6/12/2008	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-3,5,6,12-14,19-21,23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Kasriel et al. (US 20031012823 1, hereinafter "Kasriel").	1. Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kasriel. 2. Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kasriel in view of Arora et al. (US 200410205594, hereinafter "Arora").	N/A
18	US20080209464A1	18	8/28/2008	2/23/2007	3/17/2009	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claim (s) 1-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a process, machines, manufactures and composition of matter asserted utility or a well established utility.	Claims 1-9, 1 1-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by Broussard et al. (US 200410221305 Al), here in refer to as Broussard.	1. Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Broussard et al. (US 200410221305 Al), here in refer to as Broussard In view of Pinder et al. (US 200410237 100 Al), herein refer to as Pinder. 2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Broussard et al. (US 200410221305 Al), here in refer to as Broussard In view of Pinder et al. (US 200410237100 Al), herein refer to as Pinder and further in view of Vandermolen (US 200610136732 Al).	N/A
19	US20080183372A1	19	7/31/2008	1/31/2007	9/5/2008	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kuo et al (USP 7,367,319).	N/A
20	US20080182696A1	20	7/31/2008	8/4/2006	#######	103 and 112 rejections	N/A	N/A	Claims l,24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. US 200510080527 A1 to Tao et al. (hereinafter referred to as Tao) in view of U. S. Patent No. 6,709,362 to Tomohiro et al. (hereinafter referred to as Tomohiro).	Claims 13 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
21	US20080177702A1	21	7/24/2008	1/23/2007	1/7/2009	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed Page 3 invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1-23 of the current application (effective filing date: Jan. 23, 2007) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heckerman et al. (US 571 5374; date of patent: Feb. 03, 1998), hereinafter "Heckerman" in view of Yemini et al. (US 200501 37832; pub. date: Jun. 23, 2005), hereinafter "Yemini".	N/A
22	US20080176708A1	22	7/24/2008	1/23/2007	3/17/2009	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	1. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-1 0, 14, 18, 19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Tamai et al 741 5342. 2. Claims I, 4-7, 9-1 2, 14, 15 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shimada et al 5233530.	1. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada et al in view of lshizu 5829544. 2. Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada et al in view of Tabata et al 5923093 3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada et al in view of Tabata et al and Ishizu. 4. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada et al in view of Buglione et al 681 7328 and Kadota et al 71 0231 3.	N/A
23	US20080176706A1	23	7/24/2008	1/24/2007	4/2/2009	103 and 112 rejections	N/A	N/A	1. Claims 1-1 0, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oba et al 5957800 in view of Wakahara 6375591. 2. Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucknor in view of Oba and Wakahara.	Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
24	US20080176705A1	24	7/24/2008	1/23/2007	4/2/2009	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claims 1, 6, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Niki et al 7059435.	1. Claims 2-4 and 11 -1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niki et al in view of Lux et al 5484353. 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niki in view of Tabata 61 83389. 3. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niki in view of Robichaux et al 6220987. 4. Claims 16-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niki in view of Buglione et al 681 7328. 5. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niki in view of Buglione as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lux. 6. Claims 1-4, 6, 10-1 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kitano et al 200601 08163 in view of Lux et al. 7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kitano in view of Lux as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tabata. 8. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kitano in view of Lux as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Buglione.	N/A
25	US20080184184A1	25	7/31/2008	1/30/2007	1/22/2009	102 rejection	N/A	Claims 1 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,901,562 B2 to Cooke et al. (hereinafter, "Cooke").	N/A	N/A
26	US20080181272A1	26	7/31/2008	1/25/2007	10/3/2008	102 and 103 rejections	N/A	Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Diaz et al (Pub No 20050030985).	Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diaz et al. (Pub No 20050030985).	N/A
27	US20080178295A1	27	7/24/2008	1/10/2007	9/19/2007	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Moore et al U.S.2005/0091167 in view of Luo Lin et al U.S 200610048237.	N/A
28	US20080178128A1	28	7/24/2008	1/24/2007	9/19/2008	102 rejection	N/A	Claim 1-27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kerzman et al. (US Patent 6546532).	N/A	N/A
29	US20080172640A1	29	7/17/2008	1/11/2007	9/4/2008	101, 102 and 112 rejections	Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims I , 3, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Batra et al. ("Hcompare: A Hierarchical Netlist Comparison Program", 2gth ACMllEEE Design Automation Conference, 8 - 12 June 1992, pp.	N/A	Claims 1 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
30	US20080172479A1	30	7/17/2008	#######	3/13/2008	103 and 112 rejections	N/A	N/A	Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lea (US Patent No. 6,085,236) in view of Gandhi et al. (International Publication No.WO 00178001 A2).	Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
31	US20080168409A1	31	7/10/2008	1/9/2007	2/3/2009	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 15 recites a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium.	Claims I, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tieg et al. (US 6526555).	1. Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Teig et al. in view of Na. et al. (The effects of on-chip and package decoupling capacitors and efficient ASIC decoupling methodology). 2. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Teig et al. in view of Na et al as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Douriet (US200601 23374). 3. Claims 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Teig et al. in view of Na. et al. further in view Douriet et al. as applied to claims 4, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Gasparik et al. (US 200501 14806).	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
32	US20080168193A1	32	7/10/2008	1/10/2007	#######	103 rejection	N/A	N/A	1. Claims 1-8,34, and 35, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US pub. 200510097271) in view of Schreiber (US pub. 2006/0140108). 2. Claims 9-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US pub. 200510097271) in view of Schreiber (US pub. 2006/0140108), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kuhar (US pub. 200610262441).	N/A
33	US20080163148A1	33	7/3/2008	10/2/2007	2/3/2009	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 200310237064 to White et al. (Hereinafter: White).	N/A	N/A
34	US20080162456A1	34	7/3/2008	#######	#######	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. 2007101 12898 A1 issued to David Evans et al. ("Evans").	N/A	N/A
35	US20080162427A1	35	7/3/2008	#######	#######	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 15- 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US Pub. No. 2004101 86826), herein after "Choi".	N/A	N/A
36	US20080162386A1	36	7/3/2008	#######	10/6/2008	101, 102 and 112 rejections	1. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter: abstraction and/or algorithm. 2. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention has no practical application.	Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) as being anticipated by Sofman et al. (Sofman), "Improving Robot Navigation Through Self-supervised Online Learning", Robotics: Science and Systems 11, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 16-19, 2006.	N/A	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
37	US20080162377A1	37	7/3/2008	#######	1/7/2009	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 26-49 and 51 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because based on Supreme Court precedent (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1 981 ); Parker v. Flook, 437	Claims 1-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being disclosed by Cifrese et al., USPAP 2007101 92223.	Claim 1-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cifrese et al., USPAP 2007101 92223, and further in view of Hodgdon et al., USPAP 200510246260.	N/A