101 rejections of Software Patents(Date of Rejections After October-30-2008)

Sl.No.	Patent/Publication No.	Date of Publication	Application Date	Date of Rejection	FR or N/FR	Rejection type	101 Rejection	102 Rejection	103 Rejection	112 Rejection	Other than Bilski citations
1	US20080201671A1	8/21/2008	2/16/2007	2/25/2009	N/FR	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	N/A
2	US20080155477A1	6/26/2008	12/22/2006	3/4/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by "Optimize Your PocketPC Development" by MSDN Magazine (hereafter MSDN).	Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over "Optimize Your PocketPC Development" by MSDN Magazine (hereafter MSDN) in view of XP002434133.	N/A	N/A
3	US20080155460A1	6/26/2008	12/22/2006	3/17/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by "Maps Tour" by Google Maps Help Center (hereafter Google Maps).	N/A	N/A	N/A
4	US20080127018A1	5/29/2008	10/31/2006	2/6/2009	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naganuma et al., US Patent No. 5,917,729 in view of Viswanathan et al., Page 2 "Fastplace: Efficient Analytical Placement using CellShifting, Iterative Local Refinement and a Hybrid Net Model", ISPD’04, April 18-21, 2004, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Copyright 2004 ACM 1-581 13-81 7-2/04/0004.	N/A	N/A
5	US20080127013A1	5/29/2008	10/25/2006	1/29/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 112 rejections	1. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. Claims 1-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-3, 7-1 0, 12-21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Levy (US 200610095869 A1 ).	N/A	1. Claim 18 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. 2. Claims I, 8, 12, 17, 19, 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 21 72.01.	N/A
6	US20080127005A1	5/29/2008	9/7/2006	12/17/2008	N/FR	101 rejection	Claims 1, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The invention claims a method for analyzing a circuit.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
7	US20080097923A1	4/24/2008	3/9/2007	1/6/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 112 rejections	Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §1 01 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ginter (US 5892900).	N/A	Claims 1-16 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.	N/A
8	US20080092106A1	4/17/2008	9/13/2007	4/3/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claim invention is directed to nonstatutory subject mater. In re Bilski, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane).	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (U.S Patent 7488933).	N/A	N/A	N/A
9	US20080204773A1	8/28/2008	2/26/2007	3/19/2009	N/FR	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. Supreme Court precedent1 and recent Federal Circuit decisions2 indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing. (2 In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).) 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	N/A
10	US20060070127A1	3/30/2006	9/15/2005	3/19/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 as recited is directed toward a method comprising a series of steps or acts. However, as per In re Bilski 88 USPQ2d 1385, for a method/process to be statutory, the claim must (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transform a particular article to a different state or thing.	N/A	Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al. US 2004/0006532 (hereinafter "Lawrence") in view of Leary US 2004/0193572 (hereinafter "Leary").	Claims 4 and 23 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.	N/A
11	US20060067353A1	3/30/2006	11/29/2004	3/13/2009	N/FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	1. Claims 1-7 and 8-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. claims 1-26 are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Gir. 2008).	Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12-13, 19-22, 27-31, 33, 36-37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by 3GPP TR 23.846 1.0.0, Technical Report, pages 1-46, January 2002 (hereinafter "Doc").	1. Claims 4-5, 11, 14-18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doc in view of Lee et al (USPGPub 20050185620) (hereinafter Lee). 2. Claims 6-7 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doc.	1. Claims 29-32, 36, 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. 2. Claims 1-7, 27, 29, 33, 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3. Claims 33 and 41 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.	N/A
12	US20060067887A1	3/30/2006	6/22/2005	3/18/2009	N/FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Supreme Court precedentl and recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transform a particular article to a different state or thing. In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).	Claims 10-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 102(b) as being anticipated byUS 5,008,185 to Bacus (newly cited).	Claims 4,5, 13, 14,22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bacus in view of "Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer Nuclei" to Schnorrenberg et al. (previously cited in Applicant’s IDS, hereafter referred to as "Schnorrenberg").	Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 112 first and second paragraphs as attempting to define a product (i.e., machine or apparatus) entirely by virtue of its function, in the absence of any recited structure.	N/A
13	US20050075274A1	4/7/2005	9/8/2004	2/9/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are drawn to a process. A process is statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) it transforms an article to a different state or thing (In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 Fed. Cir. 2008).	Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Grass et al. (US 20010041964 AI).	Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grass et al. (US 20010041964 AI) in view ofAlmog et al. (US 6,340,346 Bl).	N/A	N/A
14	US20060067560A1	3/30/2006	9/26/2005	1/7/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Supreme Court precedent 1 and recent Federal Circuit decisions(In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).) indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing.	Claims 1,6,9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kasai (US 2001/0021251).	N/A	N/A	N/A
15	US20050075953A1	4/7/2005	10/2/2003	12/16/2008	FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 10-18 and 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Based on Supreme Court precedent and recent Federal Circuit decisions, a 35 U.S.C § 101 process must (1) be tied to a particular machine or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing. In re Bilski et ai, 88 USPQ 2d 1385 CAFC (2008); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876).	N/A	Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang et al (2003/0233290) in view of Wang et al (2005/0038684).	N/A	N/A
16	US20050076103A1	4/7/2005	9/22/2003	2/5/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claim(s) 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. While the claims recite a series of steps or acts to be performed, a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to particular machine, or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing. See page 10 of In Re Bilski 88 USPQ2d 1385.	Claims 1- 10 & 23- 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Nachman et al. (hereinafter Nachman) U.S. Publication No.: 2001/0027474 A1.	N/A	N/A	N/A
17	US20050076331A1	4/7/2005	10/2/2003	2/18/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 7, 14, 15,21,24,27-32,34,41-46, and 53-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A claim that requires one or more acts to be performed defines a process. However, not all processes are statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. To be statutory, a claimed process must either: (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943,954 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane).	Claims 53-55 and 58-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Evans et aI., "Splint Manual, Version 3.1.1-1," June 5, 2003 (prior art of record; hereinafter "[Splint]").	N/A	N/A	N/A
18	US20050078755A1	4/14/2005	10/14/2004	3/30/2009	N/FR	101 rejection	Claims 1-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Supreme Court precedent 1 and recent Federal Circuit decisions(In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).) indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
19	US20050078869A1	4/14/2005	7/23/2004	11/5/2008	N/FR	101 rejection	Claims 1-12, 14-21,23-33,36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for nonstatutory subject matter.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
20	US20080109315A1	5/8/2008	12/21/2007	2/13/2009	N/FR	101 and 112 rejections	Claim 42 recites a method where a payoff indicator is calculated, but no particular machine is used for the calculations.	N/A	N/A	Claims 42-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement and as failing the enablement requirement.	N/A
21	US20080109314A1	5/8/2008	12/21/2007	12/29/2008	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 33-36 are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus nor do they transform a particular article into a different state or thing; therefore, claims 33-36 are non-statutory under § 101.	N/A	Claims 33-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent 5930764 filed 8/23/1996 by Melchione et al. in view of US Patent Application 20030018549 filed 7/7/2002 (provisional 6/7/2001) by Fei et al.	N/A	N/A
22	US20050078866A1	4/14/2005	1/23/2004	12/29/2008	N/FR	101 amd 103 rejections	Claims 1,2,4-12, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Supreme Court precedent 1 and recent Federal Circuit decisions(In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).) indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing.	N/A	1. Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US pat no 6,549,650) in view of Yoshigahara (US pat no 7,015,951). 2. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (’650) in view of Yoshigahara (’951) and official notice.	N/A	N/A
23	US20060069519A1	3/30/2006	12/2/2005	11/28/2008	FR	101 and 112 rejections	In light of the recent court decisions in In re Bilski, etc., the method claims would have been rejected also because the claims such as claim 1 are not tied to another statutory category such as a machine or apparatus.	N/A	N/A	The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement set forth in the previous Office action mailed 9/20/07 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment filed 3/13/08.	N/A
24	US20080235259A1	9/25/2008	3/23/2007	2/20/2009	N/FR	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	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1 981 ); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1 978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1 972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1876).
25	US20080209464A1	8/28/2008	2/23/2007	3/17/2009	N/FR	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).	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.	USPTO Interim Guidelines, 1300 Official Gazette Patent and Trademark Office 142 (Nov. 22,2005).
26	US20080163148A1	7/3/2008	10/2/2007	2/3/2009	N/FR	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	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1 981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1 876).
27	US20080177702A1	7/24/2008	1/23/2007	1/7/2009	N/FR	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".	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.	N/A
28	US20080168409A1	7/10/2008	1/9/2007	2/3/2009	N/FR	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).	N/A	N/A
29	US20080162377A1	7/3/2008	12/19/2007	1/7/2009	N/FR	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	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1 981 ); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1 876)
30	US20080235177A1	9/25/2008	3/22/2007	1/27/2009	N/FR	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").	Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.	In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
31	US20080197846A1	8/21/2008	3/10/2008	12/17/2008	N/FR	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).	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.	Warmerdam 33 F.3d at 1361. 31 USPQZd at 1760, Arrhythmia, 958 F.2d at 1057,22 USPQ2d at 1036
32	US20080235739A1	9/25/2008	11/13/2006	11/25/2008	N/FR	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).	N/A	N/A
33	US20080235429A1	9/25/2008	3/23/2007	12/5/2008	N/FR	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	N/A
34	US20080162427A1	7/3/2008	12/28/2006	12/10/2008	N/FR	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	N/A
35	US20080154907A1	6/26/2008	12/22/2006	1/15/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claim 23 and depending claims 24-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they pertain to nonstatutory subject matter.	Claims 1-18, 21-40, and 43-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Plastina et al. (’Plastina’ hereafter) which filed U.S. Patent Application 20041001 9658.	Claims 19-20 and similar claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plastina as applied to claims 1-18, 21-40, and 43-51 above, and further in view of New et al. (’New’ hereafter) who filed U.S. Patent Application 2006/0195864	N/A	N/A
36	US20080155641A1	6/26/2008	12/20/2006	3/18/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1-1 4, 15, 16-25, 26, and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Heim (US Publication 2006101 84490).	N/A	N/A	State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 47USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
37	US20080155592A1	6/26/2008	12/22/2006	2/3/2009	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 15-21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows: Claims 15-21 claim "a computer readable medium containing a computer program for. ...." and Claims 25-27 claim "a data structure stored in memory".	N/A	Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pelkey (US 7,032,235) in view of Bove (US 2004101 2331 4).	N/A	USPTO Interim Guidelines, 1300 Official Gazette Patent and Trademark Office 142 (Nov. 22, 2005).
38	US20080155476A1	6/26/2008	12/20/2006	11/26/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 13-1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Callegari (PGPub. No. 200310004802).	1. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callegari (PGPub. No. 200310004802) in view of Northcutt (PGPub No. 200510130680). 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callegari (PGPub. No. 200310004802) in view of Maes (PGPub No. 200710291859; Filing date: Jun. 15, 2006). 3. Claims 7-8, 13, 15-16, I 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callegari (PGPub. No. 200310004802) in view of Eliezerov (PGPub No. 200810086361 ; Provisional filing date: Oct. 10, 2006). 4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callegari (PGPub. No. 200310004802) in view of Eliezerov (PGPub No. 200810086361; Provisional filing date: Oct. 10, 2006) and further in view of Northcutt (PGPub No. 200510130680).	N/A	N/A
39	US20080155471A1	6/26/2008	12/20/2006	3/6/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. $101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., computer data signal that is not tied to any machine).	Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 200310065721 to Roskind.	N/A	N/A	N/A
40	US20080155342A1	6/26/2008	12/21/2006	4/2/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter	N/A	1. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-1 1 and 16-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thekkath (US Patent Application Publication 200610225050).	Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph as being indefinite. 2. Claims 4, 8, 12-1 5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thekkath (’050) in view of Ekanadham (US Patent 7,308,681).	N/A
41	US20080155332A1	6/26/2008	10/30/2006	12/29/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Loison (US 200310046529 Al).	1. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loison (US 200310046529 A1 ) in view of Tami (US 2004101 33474 A1 ). 2. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loison (US 200310046529 A1 ) in view of Bailey (US 2002101 50086 A1 ). 3. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loison (US 200310046529 Al) in view of Mann (US 6,922,722 Bl).	N/A	N/A
42	US20080127229A1	5/29/2008	9/8/2006	3/5/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	1. Claims 1-2, 6, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Garnett (US 2003/0033459), hereafter referred to as Garnett’459. 2. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 1 1-1 4, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Pecone et al. (US 6,098,140), hereafter referred to as Pecone et a1.’140.	1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garnett (US 2003/0033459), hereafter referred to as Garnett’459, in view of Pecone et al. (US 6,098,140), hereafter referred to as Peconer140. 2. Claims 3-5. 7-10, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garnettr459 in view of Pecone et al. (US 6,098,140), hereafter referred to as Pecone’ 140. 3. Claims 5, 9-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pecone et a1.’140.	N/A	N/A
43	US20080127219A1	5/29/2008	9/15/2006	2/27/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 10-1 8 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(b) as being anticipated by Upton (US 200310093471).	N/A	N/A	N/A
44	US20080127103A1	5/29/2008	7/27/2006	12/10/2008	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 21 -30,34,35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Voruganti (US Publication Number 20050137844Al) in view of Parnell et al. (US Publication Number 200201 62090A1).	N/A	N/A
45	US20080098443A1	4/24/2008	1/11/2007	11/28/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention.	Claims 2-4, 7-1 1, 13-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ellis et al. (US 200210174430).	1. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis et al. (US 2002101 74430) in view of Shimoji et al. (US 6,353,930). 2. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis et al. (US 2002101 74430) in view of Knudson et al. (200510204387).	N/A	N/A
46	US20080098423A1	4/24/2008	10/20/2006	2/27/2009	FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 1-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-1 2, 14-1 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Zigmond et al. (US 6698020).	1. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zigmond in view of Lu (US 2002101 571 15). 2. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Young in view of Palazzo et al. (US 2003101 15601).	Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 11 2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.	USPTO Interim Guidelines, 1300 Official Gazette Patent and Trademark Office 142 (Nov. 22, 2005).
47	US20080098242A1	4/24/2008	10/19/2006	3/31/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 7-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-4, 7-1 0, 13-1 5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Pessolano, U.S. Patent No. 7,340,628.	N/A	N/A	N/A
48	US20080098187A1	4/24/2008	10/18/2006	1/16/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 7-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed limitation lines 2-3, "computer usable medium" is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Micka (US. Pub. No. 2003101 58869).	N/A	N/A	N/A
49	US20080098131A1	4/24/2008	9/26/2007	1/22/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.	Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. US 200710033225 A1 to Davis.	N/A	N/A	N/A
50	US20080098067A1	4/24/2008	10/20/2006	2/20/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 21 -23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claim 1-1 8, 21 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Santos (US 2003/0158900 Al)	1. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Santos (US 200310158900 Al), in view of Dorenbosch et al. (US 200410064355 Al). Hereinafter "Dorenbosch". 2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Santos (US 2003/0158900 AI), in view of Mannaru et al. (US 20060031290). Hereinafter "Mannaru".	N/A	N/A

51	US20080098066A1	4/24/2008	10/20/2006	2/19/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 11 -1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claim 1-1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Durazo et al. (US 200510004990 Al). Hereinafter "Durazo".	N/A	N/A	N/A
52	US20080098062A1	4/24/2008	10/20/2006	12/10/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 1 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	1. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (US 20060184609 Al). 2. Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (US 20060184609 Al). 3. Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (US 20060184609 Al).	Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 20060184609 Al), in view of Heinonen et al. (US 20050281237 Al).	N/A	N/A
53	US20080098051A1	4/24/2008	1/24/2007	1/12/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 12-1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 12 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Apple Inc - Technical Note TNI 150 - HFS Plus Volume Format dated March 5, 2004 - Applicant’s IDS (hereinafter, Technical note TNI 150).	1. Claims 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Apple Inc - Technical Note TNI 150 - HFS Plus Volume Format dated March 5, 2004 - Applicant’s IDS (hereinafter, Technical note TNI 150), in view of Okada (EP 1 300 850 A2 - Applicant’s IDS). 2. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Apple Inc - Technical Note TNI 150 - HFS Plus Volume Format dated March 5, 2004 - Applicant’s IDS (hereinafter, Technical note TNI 150), in view of Gotoh et al. (US 2003101 9421 8)	N/A	N/A
54	US20080097974A1	4/24/2008	10/18/2006	3/6/2009	FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims I, 2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roberts Baumgartner et al. (U.S. Publication 200500221 15 and Bumgartner hereinafter) in view of Humphreys et al. (U.S. Patent 7,003,445 and Humphreys hereinafter).	N/A	N/A
55	US20080098054A1	4/24/2008	10/23/2006	3/4/2009	N/A	101, 102 and 112 rejections	Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Subramoney et al. US Publication 2005/0198088.	Claims 12-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Subramoney et al. US Publication 2005/0198088 in view of Little et al. US Publication 2005/0129235.	N/A	N/A
56	US20080097945A1	4/24/2008	12/19/2007	12/18/2008	N/FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 1-2, 7,12-19,23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.	Claims 13-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Lee et al. "A framework for constructing features and models for intrusion detection systems", TISSEC, 2000, pp 227-261), hereinafter LS.	Claims 1-2, 7, 12, 18-19, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LS, in view of Zhang et al.	Claims 1-2, 7, 12-19, 23 and 26 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.	N/A
57	US20080097899A1	4/24/2008	7/13/2007	10/30/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-6, 8-9, 15-20, 22-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Josephson et al. (hereinafter "Josephson"); (US 5,412,190).	Claims 7, 21, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Josephson (US 5,412,190) in view of Official Notice.	N/A	In re Comiskey, 84 USPQ2d 1670(Fed. Cir.2007).
58	US20080086556A1	4/10/2008	10/10/2006	1/9/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-2,4-5,8,12-17,19-20,22-24,26-27, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Vanderbeck et al. (US 7,000,016, hereinafter Vanderbeck).	1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanderbeck as applied to claim 1, and in view of Wilkinson et al..("Enhanced Secure Dynamic DNS Update with Indirect Route", Information Assurance Workshop, 2004, Proceedings from the Fifth Annual IEEE SMC, hereinafter Wilkinson). 2. Claims 6-7, 11, 18, 25, 28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanderbeck as applied to claim 1, and in view of Luke et al. (US 2004/0133634 A1, hereinafter Luke).	N/A	N/A
59	US20080082613A1	4/3/2008	9/28/2006	3/30/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 6771991 B1) and Gilbert (US 2005/0037741 A1). 2. Claims 6, 8, 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 6771991 B1), Gilbert (US 2005/0037741 A1), and Bill (US 2006/0170945 A1).	Claim 4 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	N/A
60	US20080082400A1	4/3/2008	9/28/2007	3/23/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 112 rejections	Claims 1-7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (e) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0173744 by Kandasamy et al.	N/A	Claims 1-22 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.	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876)
61	US20080079923A1	4/3/2008	8/9/2007	11/13/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Jain [US 20030206281 A1].	Claims 5-7,12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Sandstrom [US 20040053143 A1]. The teachings of Jain have been discussed above.	N/A	N/A
62	US20080098264A1	4/24/2008	12/19/2007	4/6/2009	N/FR	101 rejection	Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
63	US20080092001A1	4/17/2008	10/3/2006	3/20/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because: Regarding claim 34, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. "A computer program product" is non-statutory subject matter. Applicant has failed to recite a physical media for the computer program. Therefor the claim is not directed as a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof. MPEP 2106.01	N/A	1. Claims 7 -10,17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. U.S. Patent 7,127,645 (herein Toyoda), in view of Robertson et al. U.S. Patent 6,323,679 (herein Robertson). 2. Claim 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toyoda.	1. Claims 1, 4 - 10, 12 - 25, 27 - 33, and 35 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. 2. Claims 1 - 6, 11 - 16, 18 - 23, 25, and 27 - 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Toyoda et al. U.S. Patent 7,127,645 (herein Toyoda).	N/A
64	US20080091978A1	4/17/2008	10/13/2006	12/31/2008	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1-11 and 20 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 Ta et al. U.s. Publication No. 2005/0262086 (herein as ’Ta’).	N/A	N/A	N/A
65	US20080091843A1	4/17/2008	10/12/2006	3/17/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seo (seocompany.ca on archive.org dated Sep. 10, 2004, hereinafter Seo) in view of Zann (Zann Marketing web page on archived.org dated May 13, 2006, hereinafter Zann).	Claims 6 and 14 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.	N/A
66	US20060069914A1	3/30/2006	8/17/2005	12/31/2008	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Regarding claims 1-10, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over AI Qayedi (cited by Applicant, "Combined Web/Mobile authentication for secure web access control") and Karmi (cited by Applicant WO 03/077572).	N/A	Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185-86, 209 USPQ at 8 (noting that the claims for an algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because "[t]he sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general purpose computer.").
67	US20060069741A1	3/30/2006	5/26/2005	11/14/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claim 41 is rejected under U.S.C.lOl because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter.	Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 US.CI02 (b) as being anticipated by Bays et al hereinafter Bays (US. 2003/0204619 AI).	Claims 22- 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bay (US 2003/0204619 AI) in view ofWiio (US 6,944,537 Bl).	N/A	N/A
68	US20060067686A1	3/30/2006	9/29/2005	3/31/2009	FR	101 rejection	Claims 1,3-5,7-9,11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
69	US20060069615A1	3/30/2006	9/29/2004	1/9/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	1. Claims 1-12, 21-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1,3,4,8,9,21,23,28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Taub et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0105666).	Claims 2, 5-7,10-20,22,24-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taub et al. (2003/0105666) in view of Pilu (2003/0078863).	N/A	Based on Supreme Court precedent, a method/process claim must (1) be tied to another statutory class of invention (such as a particular apparatus) (see at least Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1876)) or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing (see at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71 (1972)).
70	US20060067714A1	3/30/2006	6/7/2005	3/13/2009	N/FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (US 5,491,678).	Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 5,491,678) in view of Official Notice.	Claims 5-7 and 9 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.	Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760
71	US20060067425A1	3/30/2006	8/24/2005	4/6/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 4-10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention.	N/A	Claims 1-8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burgin (US Patent 6,298,096 B1) in view of Hilborn et al. (herein after Hilborn) ( US Publication "An Adaptive Direct Conversion Transmitter", IEEE 1994).	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.	N/A
72	US20060068745A1	3/30/2006	9/27/2004	12/10/2008	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claim(s) 14-25, 29, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention.	N/A	Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McLeod et al. (McLeod herein after) (US 7,221,696 81) in view of Schmidl et al. (Schmidl herein after) (US 7,184,457 82).	N/A	May 15, 2008 memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examining Policy, John J. Love, titled "Clarification of ’Processes’ under 35 U.S.C. 101 ").
73	US20060070060A1	3/30/2006	9/28/2004	1/21/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Hartsell et al. (US 2003/0236745).	N/A	N/A	N/A
74	US20060070037A1	3/30/2006	9/30/2004	1/5/2009	N/FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 1-11 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1,2, 12, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 102(e) as being anticipated by US 2005/0065803 (hereinafter "Creamer").	Claims 3-11,14-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Creamer in view ofUS 7,216,160 (hereinafter "Chintalapati").	Claims 8-11 and 22-26 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.	N/A
75	US20060069991A1	3/30/2006	9/23/2005	12/26/2008	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	1. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blinn et al. US Patent No. 7,461,090 (hereinafter, "Blinn") and further in view of Paulsen et al. US Patent No. 6,704,698 (hereinafter, "Paulsen"). 2. Claims 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blinn et al. US Patent No. 7,461,090 (hereinafter, "Blinn") in view of Paulsen et al. US Patent No. 6,704,698 (hereinafter, "Paulsen") and further in view of Tsochantaridis et al. US Patent No.7,130,837 (hereinafter, "Tsochantaridis"). 3. Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blinn et al. US Patent No. 7,461,090 (hereinafter, "Blinn") in view of Paulsen et al. US Patent No. 6,704,698 (hereinafter, "Paulsen") and further in view of Chitrapura et al. US Patent Publication No. 2005/0125216 (hereinafter, "Chitrapura").	N/A	N/A
76	US20060069972A1	3/30/2006	9/28/2004	3/18/2009	FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.	N/A	1. Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US Pat. 7,239,978; hereinafter referred to as Cheng) in view of Griswold (US Pat. 7,055,172) in view of Lach et al (US Pat. 5,909,451; hereinafter referred to as Lach). 2. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Griswold in view of Lach in view of Shigeta (US Pat. 6,915,494). 3. Claims 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Griswold in view of Lach in view of Lindberg (US Pat. 5,663,967; hereinafter referred to as Lindberg).	N/A	N/A
77	US20060069916A1	3/30/2006	8/17/2005	12/30/2008	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	claims 1-10, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims recite only perfunctory recitation of functional material (device, product, etc.). Aside from this, the claims recite only nonfunctional descriptive material. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).	N/A	Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Havenen (cited by Applicant, US patent application) and (AIQayedi "Combined Web/Mobile authentication for secure web access control").	N/A	In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
78	US20060069906A1	3/30/2006	9/30/2004	4/8/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claim 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims recite a BIOS (basic input output system) containing instructions.	N/A	1. Claims 11 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,080,244 by Natu et al in view of U.S. Patent Publication No 2004/0153539 by Lyon et al. 2. Claims 1-8, 10; 12,14-15; 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,080,244 by Natu et al in view of U.S. Patent Publication No 2004/0153539 by Lyon et al. 3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,080,244 by Natu et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,068 by Zintel et al.	Claims 12, 13 and 21 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.	N/A
79	US20060069713A1	3/30/2006	8/27/2004	3/18/2009	N/FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 33-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	1. Claims 1-2,4-7, 9, 11-15, 33-34, 36-37, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Thurlow et al. (US 5,917,489). 2. Claims 16-18, 20-28, 30-32, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Geiger et al. (US 6,073,142).	1.Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thurlow et al.. 2. Claims 8 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thurlow et al. in view of RFC 2821 ("Simple Mail Transfer Protocol"). 3. Claims 10 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thurlow et al. in view of Geiger et al.. 4. Claims 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geiger et al. in view of RFC 2821.	Claims 1-15, 33-37, and 39-42 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.	N/A
80	US20060069667A1	3/30/2006	9/30/2004	1/21/2009	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1-10,12-21,24,26, &28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dwork et al. (US Pub No. 2003/0037074 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dwork, in view of Rothwell et al. (US Patent No. 7,016,939 81), hereinafter referred to as Rothwell.	N/A	[Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 and Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780
81	US20060069631A1	3/30/2006	9/21/2005	1/6/2009	FR	101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 14 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1, 7, 8,11 -14,17,20,21 and 25 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by O’Brien et al (USPub. No. 2003/0144950).	Claims 2 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Rudman et al (USPub. No. 2002/0042772).	Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.	33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759.
82	US20060068783A1	3/30/2006	3/15/2005	11/6/2008	N/FR	101 and 112 rejections	Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1,8-9,14-15,23-24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hyvarinen et al (US 2002/0085540 A1) in view of Fenton et al (US 2003/0126263 A1).	N/A	2106.01 of the MPEP,
83	US20060067591A1	3/30/2006	9/26/2005	1/29/2009	N/FR	101 and 102 rejections	Claims 1-10 and 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-2, 9-12, 19-23, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US Patent No 6,915,025).	N/A	N/A	In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
84	US20060067587A1	3/30/2006	9/26/2005	12/22/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention.	Claims 4-5,13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hoshi (US Patent No.: 7,379,624).	Claims 9 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoshi (US Patent No.: 7,379,624).	N/A	May 15, 2008 memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examining Policy, John J. Love, titled "Clarification of ’Processes’ under 35 U.S.C. 101 ").
85	US20060067503A1	3/30/2006	6/7/2005	11/13/2008	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 39 includes computer - readable medium, but in specification, computer readable medium is described as electrical signal, e.g., in [0011].	N/A	Claim 1,4-6, 8, 15, 19, 21-22, 28, 30-32, 34, 36, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aman (2005/0120095) in view of Westroos (6327472).	N/A	N/A
86	US20060067343A1	3/30/2006	9/28/2005	12/3/2008	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-6, 8, 9,11,12, , 16-21,26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Takeuchi, U.S. Pub. No. 20020105946 A1.	Claims 7,10,13-15, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeuchi as applied to claims 1-6,8,9,11,12,,16-21,26, and 27 above, and further in view of Inoue et al (Enoue) US Pub. No. 20030163582 A1.	N/A	N/A
87	US20050074169A1	4/7/2005	11/23/2004	1/6/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	1. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 8-14 recite a computer program product embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code). 2. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 15-20 define a "system". However, while the preamble defines a "system", which would typically be indicative of an "apparatus", the body of the claim lacks definite structure indicative of a physical apparatus.	Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Su et al (US 6,519,363).	1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Su et al (US 6,519,363) as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Plessis et ai. 2. Claims 5 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Su et al (US 6,519,363) as applied to Claims 3 and 19, respectively, and further in view of Forsen et al (US 4097847).	N/A	In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007
88	US20050076132A1	4/7/2005	3/11/2004	4/2/2009	FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-9 and 11-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Blinn et al. (US 5897622).	Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blinn in view of Gershman et al. (US 6401085).	N/A	N/A
89	US20050075975A1	4/7/2005	10/2/2003	11/18/2008	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to a secondary statutory subject matter/class.	N/A	Claims 1,4,10,14, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen-Rouman et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2002/0152160), [hereinafter Allen-Rouman] in view of Bissonette et al. (US Pat. No. 6,343,279), [hereinafter Bissonette] further in view of Official Notice.	1. Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claims 1, 14, and 21 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.	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1876)]
90	US20050076005A1	4/7/2005	9/15/2003	1/9/2009	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1,3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claims 1,3-10, 14-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard et al. (D. S. Pat. No. 6,185,574) in view of Peltonen et al. D. S. Pat. No. 5,926,807).	N/A	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876).
91	US20050076241A1	4/7/2005	12/29/2003	3/18/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 37-39 and 80-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-57,60-77 and 80-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ryan et ai, (Ryan) US Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0215793.	Claims 58,59,78 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ryan et al,(Ryan) US Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0215793 in view of Roskind, US Patent Application Pub. No. 2003/0065721.	N/A	N/A
92	US20050080704A1	4/14/2005	10/7/2004	11/25/2008	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claim 1, 34 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	N/A	Claim 1-2,4-35,37-68 and 70 - 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over.	Claims 1-99 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.	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972).
93	US20050081193A1	4/14/2005	10/18/2004	2/19/2009	FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 23-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 US.c. 102(e) as being anticipated by Kawachi et al. (US. Patent Number 6,690,981).	1. Claims 1-22 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 US.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by McInerney et al. (US. Patent Number 5,325,533) in view of Conner et al. (US. Patent Number 5,428,792). 2. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Kawachi et al. (u.s. Patent Number 6,690,981) in view of McInerney et al. (U.S. Patent Number 5,325,533).	N/A	Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361,31 USPQ2d at 1760
94	US20050081208A1	4/14/2005	9/27/2004	1/30/2009	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.	N/A	Claim 1,6,10,11,16-18,23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giichi et al. (JP 1997-198346) in view of Vallee et al. "A New Approach to Configurable Dynamic Scheduling in Clusters based on Single System Image Technologies"(IPDPS 2003).	N/A	Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
95	US20050078748A1	4/14/2005	10/19/2004	1/29/2009	N/FR	101 and 103 rejections	Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four categories of inventions.	N/A	Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanamura et al. (US Patent no. 6587508) in view of Vishwanath et al. (US Patent no. 5,602589).	N/A	N/A
96	US20050078671A1	4/14/2005	7/14/2004	1/23/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Computer programs are non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1,2,4, 6, 7, 38-48, 50, 51,53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Laksono (US 2003/0156218).	Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laksono (US 2003/0156218) in view of Matsuda (EP 0933900).	N/A	N/A
97	US20070094414A1	4/26/2007	10/20/2005	3/4/2009	N/FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 16-20 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-26, 28-29, 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Guest (U.S. Application No. 2006/0200522 A1).	Claims 10 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guest (U.S. Application No. 2006/0200522 A1) in view of Conner et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,718,515 B1).	N/A	N/A
98	US20080109349A1	5/8/2008	11/8/2006	1/8/2009	FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claims 16-23,24,26,28, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 16-18, 20-22, 24, 26, 28-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tengel et al. (hereinafter "Tengel"); (US 5,940,812).	Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Tengel in view of Freeman et al. (hereinafter "Freeman"); (US 2002/0059137 A1).	N/A	Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,184 (1981); Parkerv. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876)
99	US20050078699A1	4/14/2005	10/10/2003	1/22/2009	N/FR	101, 103 and 112 rejections	Claims 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter since it fails to be limited to embodiments which fall within a statutory category.	N/A	Claims 1-2 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bunn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20070058640), in view of Liva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20020136203).	Claim 25 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.	N/A
100	US20050078751A1	4/14/2005	7/29/2003	3/3/2009	FR	101, 102 and 103 rejections	Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.c. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.	Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 102(b) as being anticipated by lung (US 5,825,423) as set forth in the previous Office Action, dated 07/18/08.	Claims 1,3-10, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim (US 5,912,707) as set forth in the previous Office Action, dated 07/18/08.	N/A	N/A