Source: https://www.ptab.us/2012/06/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:47:35+00:00

Document:
All of the components of the assembly in a specific implementation need not be recited in any claim unless the specification indicates that applicant did not invent subject matter that is without such specifics. See ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Appellant cites North American Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Appellant points out that North American Vaccine mentions that the use of “a” in a claim can mean “one or more.” However, North American Vaccine also states that “[w]hen the meaning of a claim term is in doubt, we look to the specification for guidance.” Id. at 1576.
Appellant’s citation to the mere use of “a” in the specification to support the argument that “a” means “one or more” in the claims is inconsistent with North American Vaccine. (App. Br. 22). In North American Vaccine the court found no indication in the patent specification that the inventors intended “a” to have other than its normal singular meaning. Id.
The use of extrinsic evidence is permissible to show that the missing descriptive material is necessarily present in the prior art reference description and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Continental Can Co, U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
The Examiner’s position is that Howard v. Detroit Stove Works holds that forming a one piece article from two pieces is a matter of routine skill. The Examiner, however, appears to draw from this case turning on specific facts, a general obviousness rule: namely, that forming several pieces integrally as a single-piece is not considered to be patentable subject matter. No such per se rule exists.
As for claims 7-12, a computer-implemented method is recited. However, simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where the claims recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed. Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Simply adding [computerized sending and receiving steps] to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.” Id. at 1340.
As to the “computer-implemented method,” we further note that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such datagathering steps cannot alone confer patentability. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome. Here, we find that the computer-implemented system is software (a software system), and is therefore non-statutory subject matter.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v.