In re Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
502 F.2d 765 · 1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2017
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Gottschalk v. Benson · In re Prater · In re Prater · In re Sponnoble · In re Bernhart
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(T)he instant claims in Apparatus form, do not claim or encompass a law of nature, a mathematical formula, or an algorithm.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dann v. Johnston · In re Noll“The solicitor argues that the board had another basis for its indefiniteness rejection, namely that the means-plus-function recitations in the claims are indefinite for lack of any corresponding descriptions of structure in the specification upon which the scope of equivalents might be based in accordance with the third paragraph of § 112. However we cannot agree with the solicitor that the board set forth any such basis for its “indefiniteness” rejection. Furthermore, the thrust of this proposed rejection indicates that it would have been properly made under the first paragraph of § 112. See In re Comstock, 481 F.2d 905 , 178 USPQ 616 (CCPA 1973), In re Knowlton, supra. See also In re Bernhart, supra. [ 502 F.2d at 770 , 183 USPQ at 176. Emphasis in original.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Noll“To process the transaction file, the . . . system employs a data processor, such as a programmable electronic digital computer, having certain data storage files and a control system. In addition to the transaction file, a master record-keeping file is used to store all of the records required for each customer in accordance with the customer's own chart of accounts. The latter is individually designed to the customer's needs and also constructed to cooperate with the control system in the processing of the customer's transactions. The control system directs the generation of periodic output reports for the customer which present the customer's transaction records in accordance with his own chart of accounts and desired accounting procedures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dann v. Johnston
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.