Legal Opinion
In re Pardo
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided August 5, 1982No. Appeal No. 81-619PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge.
This is an ex parte pro se appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims 26-611 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter and, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b), entering a new rejection of the same claims for obviousness, 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The Invention
Appellants characterize their invention as a method for controlling the internal operations of a computer. The invention converts a computer from a sequential processor (which executes…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Diamond v. DiehrSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Gottschalk v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Diamond v. ChakrabartySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Parker v. FlookSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. LarsenCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Refac International, Ltd. And Forward Reference Systems, Ltd. v. Lotus Development CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- In re MeyerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.