Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Nuijten
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 20, 2007No. 2006-1371; Serial No. 09/211,928Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLinn, Circuit Judge
I am pleased to join Part II.A of the majority opinion because I agree that a “signal,” as used in the claims at issue, refers to something with a “physical form.” Majority Op. at 1352-53. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s holding that the claims in suit are not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. I therefore dissent in part from Part II.B of the opinion and from the judgment.
This case presents challenging questions that go beyond the single patent claim at issue. In determining the scope of patentable subject matter, we must reconcile cutting-edge…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Saint Francis College v. Al-KhazrajiSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- 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
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.