= =
{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''51'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''52'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''53'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<nowiki>’</nowiki>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<nowiki>’</nowiki>s IDS (hereinafter, Technical note TNI 150), in view of Okada (EP 1 300 850 A2 - Applicant<nowiki>’</nowiki>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<nowiki>’</nowiki>s IDS (hereinafter, Technical note TNI 150), in view of Gotoh et al. (US 2003101 9421 8)
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''54'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<nowiki> </nowiki> 200500221 15 and Bumgartner hereinafter) in view of Humphreys et al. (U.S. Patent<nowiki> </nowiki> 7,003,445 and Humphreys hereinafter).
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''55'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''56'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''57'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>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).
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''58'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''59'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''60'''</font>
|align = "center"|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)
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''61'''</font>
|align = "center"|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 <nowiki>[</nowiki>US 20030206281 A1<nowiki>]</nowiki>.
|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 <nowiki>[</nowiki>US 20040053143 A1<nowiki>]</nowiki>. The teachings of Jain have been discussed above.
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''62'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''63'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''64'''</font>
|align = "center"|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 <nowiki>’</nowiki>Ta<nowiki>’</nowiki>).
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''65'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''66'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because "<nowiki>[</nowiki>t<nowiki>]</nowiki>he sole practical<br>application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general<br>purpose computer.").
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''67'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''68'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''69'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>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)).
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''70'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''71'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''72'''</font>
|align = "center"|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 <nowiki>’</nowiki>Processes<nowiki>’</nowiki> under 35 U.S.C. 101 ").
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''73'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''74'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''75'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''76'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''77'''</font>
|align = "center"|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).
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''78'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which<br>applicant regards as the invention.
|N/A
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''79'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''80'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|<nowiki>[</nowiki>Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.<br>584, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 and Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''81'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<nowiki>’</nowiki>Brien et al (USPub. No. 2003/0144950).
|Claims 2 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O<nowiki>’</nowiki>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.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''82'''</font>
|align = "center"|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,
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''83'''</font>
|align = "center"|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).
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''84'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>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 <nowiki>’</nowiki>Processes<nowiki>’</nowiki> under 35 U.S.C. 101 ").
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''85'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>described as electrical signal, e.g., in <nowiki>[</nowiki>0011<nowiki>]</nowiki>.
|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''86'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''87'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''88'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''89'''</font>
|align = "center"|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), <nowiki>[</nowiki>hereinafter Allen-Rouman<nowiki>]</nowiki> in view of Bissonette et al. (US Pat. No. 6,343,279), <nowiki>[</nowiki>hereinafter Bissonette<nowiki>]</nowiki> 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)<nowiki>]</nowiki>
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''90'''</font>
|align = "center"|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).
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''91'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''92'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972).
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''93'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''94'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''95'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''96'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''97'''</font>
|align = "center"|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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''98'''</font>
|align = "center"|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)
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''99'''</font>
|align = "center"|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 <nowiki> </nowiki> 20070058640), in view of Liva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication <nowiki> </nowiki>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
|-
|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''100'''</font>
|align = "center"|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<br>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
|-
|}