Fandom

The IT Law Wiki

In re Waldbaum (Waldbaum I)

32,198pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Citation Edit

In re Waldbaum (Waldbaum I), 457 F.2d 997, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 430 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (full-text).

Overview Edit

The invention was a method of analyzing data words to determine the number of binary 1’s they contained. The claims were limited to such language as "data processor" and "register."[1] Patent Office objections based on Sections 100(b) and 101 were overruled.

C.C.P.A. Proceedings Edit

The principal point of interest was the C.C.P.A.'s elaboration of the Musgrave "technological arts" test: "The phrase 'technological arts,' as we have used it, is synonymous with the phrase 'useful arts' as it appears in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution."[2]

Judge Rich filed a concurring opinion, apparently only for the purpose of refining the majority's statement.

The phrase "useful arts" which was written into the Constitution conjures up images of the Franklin stove, horse collars, and buggy whips, The term "technological arts" was selected in Musgrave as probably having a connotation in these times roughly equivalent to that which "useful arts" had in the eighteenth century. No new legal concept was intended. . . . Now we have come full circle in pointing out that the intention all along has been to convey the same idea and to occupy whatever ground the Constitution permits with respect to the categories of patentable subject matter named in Section 101.[3]

ReferencesEdit

  1. 457 F.2d at 1000, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) at 432.
  2. Id. at 1003, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) at 434.
  3. Id. at 1003-04, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) at 435 (Rich, J., concurring).

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki