Legal Opinion
In re Johnson
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided December 7, 1978No. Appeal Nos. 76-717 to 76-719PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
These appeals are from the decisions of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejections of all claims in three consolidated cases1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter.2 We reverse on all claims.
The Inventions
The inventions before us involve methods for removing undesired components (noise) from seismic data. In seismic prospecting, an acoustic or seismic wave energy source is positioned either in a relatively shallow shot hole on the surface of the earth, or is towed a predetermined distance beneath…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Gottschalk v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Parker v. FlookSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- MacKay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. LarsenCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- In re SherwoodCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1980
- In re AbeleCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- In re WalterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1980
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.