35 USC 101 discussed in Ex parte Raley
See Ex parte Raley
Appellants merely repeat paragraphs [0005] and [0006] from the Specification and maintain that the claim language "clearly falls within the scope of statutory subject matter as set forth in 35 U.S.C. ยง 101." (Reply Br. 8). We find Appellants' general argument to be unavailing.
AND
We refer Appellants to the February 23, 2010 "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media," 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010), policy statement by former USPTO Director David J. Kappos, as published in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (reproduced below).
Appellants merely repeat paragraphs [0005] and [0006] from the Specification and maintain that the claim language "clearly falls within the scope of statutory subject matter as set forth in 35 U.S.C. ยง 101." (Reply Br. 8). We find Appellants' general argument to be unavailing.
AND
We refer Appellants to the February 23, 2010 "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media," 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010), policy statement by former USPTO Director David J. Kappos, as published in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (reproduced below).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home