Yes, you read that headline correctly. Today, one panel of the Board reversed an Examiner's 101 rejection of the following claim. Here's the rationale in its entirety:
“We find that claims 23, 29, and 30
recite a computerized method which includes a step of outputting information
from a computer (FF 7 and 9-10) and therefore, are tied to a particular machine
or apparatus.”
So much for that "insignificant post-solution activity" requirement. And there's no antecedent basis for that "computer system", either.
Case is Ex Parte Dickerson. Care to guess who the assignee is? Think Blue.
23. A computerized
method for identifying a solution to address exposed performance gaps of a
company in a specific industry, comprising:
first identifying a plurality of
operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the operational metrics
includes a factor used to measure health or viability of a generic company in
the specific industry, wherein the specific industry is a grocery store
industry, wherein the operational metrics include at least one of a rate of
inventory turnover and a number of customers per day; assembling a set of solutions for application by the specific industry, wherein the set includes one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service; assessing impacts of application of the
set of solutions on the operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein
the assessing includes determining which of the set of solutions has a negative
impact on an operational metric and determining which of the set of solutions
has a positive impact on the operational metric; identifying a solution based upon the
impacts to address the exposed performance gaps, wherein the solution is at
least one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service that impacts a
problem in a positive manner; and outputting the solution from the computer system. |
Recent Comments