Changes
/* */
=Software Patents after October 2008=
== Software Patents after October 2008 with rejections=={|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Sl.No.'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Patent/Publication No.'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Date of Publication'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Application Date'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Date of Rejection'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''Rejection type'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''101 Rejection'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''102 Rejection'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''103 Rejection'''</font>|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''112 Rejection'''</font>|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''1'''</font>|align = "center"|US20090083524A1|3/26/2009|4/30/2007|3/31/2009|102, 103 and 112 rejections|N/A|Claims 1-3, 6,13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Roussel (U.S. 6,212,618).|Claims 4-5,7-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Roussel (U .S. 6,212,618).|Claims 4,8,10-12,14, and 16 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.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''2'''</font>|align = "center"|US20090083451A1|3/26/2009|9/26/2007|12/23/2008|102 rejection|N/A|Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2008/0288707 A1 granted to Nicolet, Richard (hereinafter "N icolet".)|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''3'''</font>|align = "center"|US20090049338A1|2/19/2009|8/16/2007|9/5/2008|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sastry et al. (US 2006/0195444) in view of Mannila et al. ("Discovery of Frequent Episodes in Event Sequences"). 2. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sastry et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>423) in view of Mannila et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Sastry et al. (<nowiki>’</nowiki>444).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''4'''</font>|align = "center"|US20090048802A1|2/19/2009|8/16/2007|12/22/2008|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 1-3, 5,12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woollenweber (US Patent 5,025,629) in view of Bernier et al. (US Patent 4,215,412) (hereinafter "Bernier"). 2. Claims 6, 7, 9 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woollenweber in view of Bernier and further in view of Voss (US Patent 4,502,437). 3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woollenweber in view of Bernier and further in view of Romzek (US Patent 6,457,461). 4. Claims 1-3, 5,11,12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US Patent 7,137,773) (hereinafter "McDonald") in view of Romzek (US Patent 6,457,461). 5. Claim 13 and 15-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US Patent 7,137,773) (hereinafter "McDonald"), in view of Romzek (US Patent 6,457,461), in view of Wang (US Patent 6,298,718) and further in view of Wang et al. (US PGPub 2002/0144674). 6. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US Patent 7,137,773) (hereinafter "McDonald"), in view of Romzek (US Patent 6,457,461), in view of Wang (US Patent 6,298,718) in view of Wang et al. (US PGPub 2002/0144674) and further in view of Richey (US Patent 7,111,461). 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US Patent 7,137,773) (hereinafter "McDonald") in view of Romzek (US Patent 6,457,461) in view of Voss (US Patent 4,502,437) and further in view of Richey (US Patent 7,111,461).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''5'''</font>|align = "center"|US20090025070A1|1/22/2009|7/23/2008|1/29/2009|102, 103 and 112 rejections|N/A|Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9,11-15,17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Persson et al. (hereinafter "Persson", US 6,144,653).|Claims 5, 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Persson et al. (hereinafter "Persson", US 6,144,653) in view of Jokinen et al. (hereinafter "Jokinen", US 2003/0027581. Note: Also cited in IDS dated 9/5/2008).|Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''6'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080319692A1|12/25/2008|6/21/2007|7/29/2008|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|Claims 1-3, 10, 12-13, 16-17,20-21,25,27,29-31,33 and 37 are rejected under 35 u.s.c. 102(a) as being anticipated by Park ("Performance assessment and validation of piezoelectric active-sensors in structural health monitoring", Oct 2006).|1. Claims 11, 18-19,26,28,34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park in view of Janke (US pat 5446682). 2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park in view of Flanagan ("Developing a self-diagnostic system for piezoelectric sensors" 1990).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''7'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080313049A1|12/18/2008|6/19/2007|11/3/2008|101 and 103 rejections|1. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2. Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected as they depend off claim 15 and additionally because they recite the phrase "the computer readable program code as recited in claim 15" but no such limitation was recited in claim 15.|N/A|Claims 1-3, 6-11,13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis (US 6,269,361) in further view of Brewer (US 2006/0235860).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''8'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080302967A1|12/11/2008|4/28/2006|4/1/2008|103 and 112 rejections|N/A|N/A|1. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Royle et al. (6,080,989). 2. Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Royle et al. (6,080,989) in view of Dudar et al. (5,324,948).|Claim 5 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.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''9'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080301609A1|12/4/2008|5/31/2007|11/13/2008|102 rejection|N/A|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Kumar et al "A Test Structure Adviosr and a Coupled, Library-Based Test Structure Layout and Testing Enviroment " IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing Vol. 10, No 3, August 1997, pp. 370-383.|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''10'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080294376A1|11/27/2008|5/21/2007|8/14/2008|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon et al. (US 2008/0046288) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2004/0015337).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''11'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080288197A1|11/20/2008|5/18/2007|9/10/2008|103 and 112 rejections|N/A|N/A|Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ascar et al. (US 6,769,100).|Claims 1-24 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.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''12'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080285947A1|11/20/2008|10/30/2006|3/25/2009|103 rejection|N/A|N/A|Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US Patent 7,401,100) and Kikuchi et al. (US Patent 5,870,523).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''13'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080294265A1|11/27/2008|5/22/2007|2/2/2009|101, 102, 103 and 112 rejections|Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|1. Claims 1-5, 8-12,15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,205,411 81 to DiGioia, III et al. (DiGioia). 2. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0153827 A1 to Sarin et al (Sarin).|Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DiGioia in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0095047 A1 to de la Barrera (Barrera).|Claims 5, 18, 20, 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.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''14'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080288999A1|11/20/2008|3/22/2007|4/3/2009|101, 103 and 112 rejections|Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|N/A|Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura et ai., "Model-Driven Security Based on a Web Services Security Architecture," IEEE, 2005, pages 1-9 (hereinafter Nakamura) and in view of Moreh et al.|Claim 21 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.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''15'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080281438A1|11/13/2008|4/23/2004|10/30/2008|102, 103 and 112 rejections|N/A|Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 16-20 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Firth et al. US 6,643,596.|1. Claims 5, 6, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Firth et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Middlebrooks, S. "Modeling and Control of Silicon and Germanium Thin Film Chemical Vapor Deposition" (Feb. 2001). 2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Firth et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official Notice. 3. Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,643,596 ("Firth"). 4. Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Firth in view of Middlebrooks "Modelling and Control of Silicon and Germanium Thin Film Chemical Vapor Deposition" Feb. 2001. 5. Claims 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Firth.|Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''16'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080263246A1|10/23/2008|4/17/2007|3/3/2009|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.|Claims 1-3,7,16-18,22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,732,219 (hereinafter Broyles).|Claims 4-5 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Broyles as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Applicant<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''17'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080256520A1|10/16/2008|4/12/2007|1/14/2008|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Boucher et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,957,208) (hereinafter Boucher).|Claims 2,9, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35. U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boucher et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,957,208) (hereinafter Boucher) in view of O<nowiki>’</nowiki>Donnell (U.S. Patent No. 6,374,369).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''18'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080255825A1|10/16/2008|6/24/2008|3/3/2009|101 rejection|Claims 1 - 7 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|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''19'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080254888A1|10/16/2008|8/27/2007|2/5/2009|102 rejection|N/A|1. Claims 1-2,4-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al (US 2003/0003977 AI). 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.c. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2003/0003977 AI) as applied to claim 2 above.|N/A|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''20'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080253315A1|10/16/2008|3/14/2006|9/23/2008|101, 102 and 103 rejections|Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.|Claims 1-2,4, 7-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Salonidis (U.S. Patent 6,865,371 82).|1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salonidis (U.s. Patent 6,865,371 82) in view of Aiello (U.S. Patent 7, 031,294 82). 2. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salonidis (U.S. Patent 6,865,371 82) in view of Lundby (U.S. Pub. No.: 2003/0083082 A1 ). 3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Page 7 Salonidis (U.S. Patent 6,865,371 82) in view of Rune (U. S. Pub. No.: 2003/0012173 A1 ).|N/A|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''21'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080252516A1|10/16/2008|4/13/2007|12/2/2008|102, 103 and 112 rejections|N/A|1. Claims 1,4-5,8, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Griffen (US 2002/0070889 A1). 2. Claims 4-6,8,9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by IDS document Effland. 3. Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Rideout (US 2003/0117319 A1). 4. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8,10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by IDS document Haworth.|Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rideout (US 2003/0117319 A1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of IDS document Effland.|Claims 1, 5, 8, 15, and 17 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.|-|align = "center" bgcolor = "#808080"|<font color="#CCFFCC">'''22'''</font>|align = "center"|US20080250198A1|10/9/2008|11/2/2006|3/24/2009|102 and 103 rejections|N/A|Claims 38,40,41 and 43-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Linder (US 2003/0002405).|Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linder (US 2003/0002405) in view of Hetzler et al. (US 2003/0154412), referred to as "Hetzler" hereinafter.|N/A|-|}
== ==
== ==
