Application of Johnston
Decision Date | 19 September 1974 |
Parties | Application of Thomas R. JOHNSTON. Patent Appeal No. 9088. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Morton C. Jacobs, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellant, McClure, Millman & Jacobs, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.
Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals rejecting claims 20-241 of appellant's application.2
Appellant's invention relates to an automatic financial record-keeping system which employs a digital computer. The application states:
The control system is described as comprising a general control which is applicable to the processing operations that are common to most customers and a master control for the operations that vary on an individual basis with each customer. The general control, as allegedly reduced to practice, is in the form of a software program, and the master control is a series of sub-files, one for each customer, which are in the form of a sequence of records containing suitable control mechanisms and the customer's financial data.
The application contains schematic block and flow diagrams of the entire apparatus including detailed descriptions of each diagram which set forth the interrelationships between all the disclosed elements of the apparatus. The application also discloses a print-out of a complete program and a detailed flow chart thereof for use with a known commercial general-purpose computer, the IBM 1400 series, to provide the special-purpose computer which forms the apparatus of appellant's invention.
Claim 20 is exemplary:
The examiner rejected all the claims in appellant's application under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. § 102; however, the board did not consider the underlying bases for these rejections to be valid and did not sustain these rejections.3 However, under the provisions of Rule 196(b), Rules of Practice in Patent Cases,4 the board then entered five new rejections under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, 35 U.S.C. § 101, and 35 U.S.C. § 103.5
The board's first rejection of the claims is under the provisions of the second paragraph of § 112 in that the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which appellant considers to be his invention.
The board stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc.
...some inventions can by competent draftsmanship be directed to either a method or an apparatus. See In re Johnston, 502 F.2d 765, 772, 183 USPQ 172, 179 (CCPA 1974) (Rich, J., dissenting). The inventor of such an invention has the option as to the form the claims in his patent will assume. T......
-
Application of Bergy
...and machine claims in the software field and the application of § 101 in that field, see In re Johnston, 502 F.2d 765, 772, 183 USPQ 172, 178 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974) (Rich, J., dissenting). For further discussion of the point, of the subject of claiming program inventions generally, and of ......
-
Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp.
...reason remaining a mystery."), overruled in part by In re Taner, 681 F.2d 787, 214 USPQ 678 (1982); In re Johnston, 502 F.2d 765, 773, 183 USPQ 172, 179 (CCPA 1974) (Rich, J., dissenting) ("I am probably as much--if not more--confused by the wording of the Benson opinion as many others."); ......
-
Eltra Corp. v. Basic, Inc.
...unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art. . . . " (425 U.S. at 228, 96 S.Ct. at 1398, quoting Application of Johnston, 502 F.2d 765, 772 (C.C.P.A.1974) (Markey, C. J., dissenting).) Although the subsidiary questions outlined in Graham, supra, are essentially factual, the ultimate issu......
-
A Field Guide to Intellectual Property
...re Christensen, 478 F.2d 1392, 178 U.S.P.Q. 35 (CCPA 1973); Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 U.S.P.Q. 257 (1976) rev'g., In re Johnson, 502 F.2d 765, 183 U.S.P.Q. 172 (CCPA 1974); In re Chatfield, 545 F.2d 152, 191 U.S.P.Q. 730 (CCPA 1976), cert. den. 195 U.S.P.Q. 465 (1977); In re Noll,......
-
James E. Daily & F. Scott Kieff, Anything Under the Sun Made by Humans: Patent Law Doctrines as Endogenous Institutions for Commercializing Innovation
...of Appeals to hold a rehearing before a specially packed Board designed to reject the patent on a type of software.Id.In re Johnston, 502 F.2d 765, 774 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (Rich, J., dissenting), rev’d sub nom. Dann v.Johnston, 425 U.S. 219 (1976).government communications and outreach efforts,......