Art Unit 2506Serial No. 08/578,325
REPLY BRIEF
(Serial No. 08/578,325)
IN RE FRANK R. BONCZYK
Frank R. Bonczyk, of Worcester, Massachusetts, submitted ProSe,
All Rights to Patent are those of
Sole inventor Frank R. Bonczyk
This is in response to Examiners Answer, Dated 22 Dec 1997 37CFR 1.193
1. Examiners Answers, Page 3, "The Examiner was mistaken in
understanding the invention as a model of naturally occurring article"
2. The original wording of PTO's recanted understanding used the term, 'naturally
occurring structure'. Ref: PTO office communication dated, 01/30/97, page
4, "To grant a patent on such a description would allow the patent owner to
exclude others from using the naturally occurring structure described…Such
exclusion would constitute the removal of the naturally occurring structure
from public domain."
Whereas, the greater part of the inventor's brief is given to argue the PTO's contention that held the applicant's structure as a "naturally occurring structure", and to that end, the brief presented hypothetical articles, i.e., "subatomic particles, programmable primary life form, a programmable primary memory system, or a programmable DNA structure, or a programmable biotic computer" that were mistakenly taken by the PTO as
-23-
disparate articles the inventor intended to be covered by the invention. Withstanding the Examiner's recant, the articles referred to are without basis and irrelevant.
However, the PTO's recant undermines the bulk of the inventor's appeal and allows the PTO an escape from its contradictory stand doggedly held since the application date, 12/26/95, i.e., a 'naturally occurring structure' vs. 'conceptual model completely divorced from any physical structure.' Though both present non-statutory subject matter, they each pose opposite sides of the argument. To declare the invention an article (structure) that 'occurs naturally', acknowledges the article as a physical structure. The inventor so guided is obliged to simply demonstrate to the PTO that the invention's structure is unique, and does not exist naturally. The question of the invention's existence as a physical structure is not at issue. An argument set to prove the invention does not occur naturally does not by any stretch simultaneously reduce the invention to a 'conceptual model divorced from any physical structure.'
The breech of the Appellant's argument remains intact to contend the PTO without proof continues to redefine the invention, and thereby compromise the inventor's right to patent protection.
3. Examiner's Answer page 3, "…Appellant's deliberate avoidance of conventional names for elements and structures so as not to limit the invention."
4. See Attachment 2, 'What's in a name'. Had the inventor used the name of the elements, the staid conventional characteristics, reactions, and descriptions associated with those elements, (i.e., void of parameter free principles of their basic mechanism, time duration existence, velocities, gravity, particle assembly, and decay, mix angles, etc.,) would likewise be associated with and applied to the
-24-
invention. Then…to grasp the basic nature of the inventor's structure, one is hamstrung trying to get beyond the conventional understanding of those elements. Instead, the inventor chose to explain in simplistic detail to teach the principles of energy of each element involved in the invention.
5. Examiner's Answer page 3, "In fact, Appellant attempted to claim in claim 19 (which was objected to because of dependency problems) any symbolic representation of the invention.
6. Claim 19 objected to, subject to petition.
Reference Cited
Discover Magazine, January 1998
The Year in Science Chemistry
What's in a Name, page 42
(Attachment 2)
Claim 19 preserves the inventor's right to be the lexicographer in naming the inventions' features. The invention is as a newborn child, and is a fitting entitlement of the inventor to assign names, symbols, signs to the newborn, and its offspring, also, to prevent upstarts from pinning on labels offensive to the inventor's intent.
7. Examiner's Answer page 4, "Instead, the claims are directed to deliberately abstract ideas, divorced from any physical structure."
8. With respect to the Examiner's Answer, the issue of the invention's existence as a naturally occurring structure is removed. Thus, the Appellant's response must turn to illustrate the principles utilized by the invention are sound, and not a mere manipulation of abstract ideas; that the invention's structure has connection to a physical structure.
-25-
See FIG. 3A of Drawings. The principles used to explain the invention's structure, if applied to phenomenon recently seen by the Hubble telescope, (pictures taken since the date of the inventions application 12/24/95) does also explain those phenomenon. Should an unbiased look occur, the principles used in the inventor's structure stand out bold and clear.
Reference Cited
The Boston Globe, 22 December 1997
Health/Science
Cosmic ornaments
(Attachment 1)
Attachment (1): A newspaper clipping from the Boston Globe dated, 12/22/97, displays various pictures taken by the Hubble telescope to show the PTO, the resultant principles of energy utilized in the invention on a Galactic scale, and is indicative of the invention's connection to physical structures. See FIG. 3, Of Drawings, NGC 6826 corresponds to the inventor's structure at full, * L, * R development, along with a view of its supernatural structure, SNS 202. NGC 7009 corresponds to the inventor's structure as it divides. See FIG. 4a of Drawings, M2-9 an archetypal source of Bp. Bp', shows the Bp, Bp' as they leave the PO region. The structures of the Jets (bound trivial) take on the shape and characteristics of the Bps in their makeup. Note the areas within the jets that correspond to 33+½ (18) of invention that eventually become the final unit identity of the structure. See FIG. 3A of Drawings, NGC 5307 (Bp', Bp Combine), IC3568 (neutral state), and NGC 3918 (emerges from Neutral state). Though the invention would appear similar to the above on a galactic scale, the
-26-
difference is found in the 33+½ (18) of the invention. What is here in the invention, vis-a-vis is there to the same degree. Yet, when the entire concoction of description of elements, and principles held by conventional science are applied, they fail miserably to predict or explain the phenomenon presented above, of which the invention succinctly details every aspect. One begins to wonder if science, much less the PTO, understands how the principles of energy carry on. Both conventional science and the PTO prove so barren on these matters that in innocence they deprave the inventor and his invention.
9. Examiner's Answer page 3. "A structure which is nothing more than a way of describing the manipulation of abstract ideas is not statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Warmerdam, 31 USPQ2d at 1760."
10. To justify the PTO's statement, the PTO must hold to these notions: Particle energy is a non-physical element; i.e., the building blocks of matter are considered divorced from any physical structure; principles that describe an element, and its function in finite detail, but avoids the use of conventional names bound by their limited definition, have no merit - and are faulted by the PTO. Again, such innocence enjoyed by the PTO attempts to undermine the inventor's claims by audaciously declaring the inventor's structure as nothing more than…abstract ideas. See, In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902,907, ___U.S.P.Q.___(C.C.PA. 1982); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795,215 U.S.P.Q. 193 (C.C.P.A 1982), "If a scientific principle, law, idea, or mental process is included in the subject matter of a claim, the claim is statutory if the idea or mental process is "applied in any manner to physical elements or process steps"
Paraphrase of Warmendams Decision
The Examiner's reliance on Warmendams is misplaced. The energy structure at issue in the inventor's case is a physical,
-27-
interconnected assembly of particle energy and thus embraced by the term, "machine". The same cannot be said of the data structure that is at issue in the Warmendam's case. Contrary to the examiner's assertions, the phrase "data structure" does not imply a physical arrangement of the contents of a memory. Thus, the Examiner's Answer is inapposite.
11. Examiner's Answer, Page 4, "As the Supreme Court held in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, cited by Appellant" and comments, "There are no raw materials given new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations by hand, labor or machinery to produce articles claimed in the instant application."
12. On the contrary, Ref: Claim 1 of the invention, "…the Fabricated energy comprising a unitary structure of a single Base Particle (Bp) set to a time opposed opposite (Bp') of itself that together provides the function of energy…." To what obscure fringe of science does the PTO retreat in order to justify and proclaim without grounds or basis of fact that a particle of energy exists without structure? In fairness to sound reason, the PTO must concur that Base Particles (Bps) are the raw material used in the invention's structure and provide patent protection to the invention.
With respect,
Frank R. Bonczyk, Appellant
21 February 1998
-28-
| all rights reserved copyright 1999-2004 | contact us for more information | from our mind to yours | |
 |
|||
