Difference between revisions of "101 rejections of Software Patents(Date of Rejections After October-30-2008)"

From DolceraWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 664: Line 664:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
= =

Revision as of 22:40, 17 April 2009

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

Retrieved from "https://www.dolcera.com/wiki/index.php?title=101_rejections_of_Software_Patents(Date_of_Rejections_After_October-30-2008)&oldid=5569"