§

Ex parte YASTROW

08176297 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 1998)
Ex parte YASTROW

5 Cited authorities

  1. State St. Bank Trust v. Sig. Fin. G

    149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 60 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the means-plus-function elements of the claims on appeal all corresponded to supporting structures disclosed in the written description

  2. In re Abele

    684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 40 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that electronic transformation of data into a visual depiction of body tissues satisfied the transformation test for patent eligibility

  3. Application of Freeman

    573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978)   Cited 46 times
    Using computer to transcribe alphanumeric characters was not an algorithm.

  4. Application of Walter

    618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 17 times

    Appeal No. 79-599. March 27, 1980. Reed C. Lawlor, Pasadena, Cal., attorney of record, for appellant, Robert C. Smith, Sylmar, Cal., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and MALETZ, Judges. The Honorable Herbert N. Maletz, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge

  5. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,493 times   2273 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."