Ex Parte Catlin : Functional Claim Elements to a General Purpose Computer Must Be Supported by an Algorithm

Author: Michelle Pacholec Ph.D.
Editor: Adriana L. Burgy

PTAB Decision

Ex parte Catlin, Appeal 2007-3072 (February 3, 2009)

Background

The Supervising Patent Examiner filed a request for rehearing of a Board decision affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part an Examiner’s decision based on obviousness grounds. In reviewing the rehearing request, the Board vacated its prior decision, dismissed the request for rehearing, and instituted a new ground of rejection of all the claims for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

The technology related to a method for implementing an on-line incentive system, reciting “providing, at a merchant’s website, means for a consumer to participate in an earning activity.” Noting that the specification describes generally that such earning activity can be accessing through the web site, and that incentive activities may generally include frequent flyer and “points”-based programs, the Board stated that such description “merely provides examples of the results of the operation of an unspecified algorithm . . . by which the consumer is able to participate in an earning activity.” The Board determined that the “specification fails to disclose the algorithms that transform the general purpose processor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the” claimed functions. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Inter. Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Issue

Are means-plus-function claims describing a ‘general purpose computer’ indefinite if not supported by an algorithm in the specification?

Outcome

The claims are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

Prosecution Takeaway

To avoid challenges to claim indefiniteness, functional claim elements to a general purpose computer must be adequately supported in the specification by sufficient structure, e.g., an algorithm.

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: