53 F.3d 1583 - In re Beauregard — 53 F.3d 1583

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2013

4 federal appellate ·

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.

¶1Nancy J. Linck, Sol., Albín F. Drost, Deputy Sol. and Richard Torczon, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol, Arlington, VA, were on the Com’r of Patents and Trademarks motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

¶2Robert Greene Sterne, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, Washington, DC, was on Appellants’ response to the Com’rs motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3ON MOTION

¶4ORDER

¶5ARCHER, Chief Judge.

¶6The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks moves to dismiss Gary M. Beauregard *1584et al.’s appeal. Beauregard responds stating that vacatur or reversal of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ decision and remand to the Board is the appropriate disposition. Beauregard requests that the remand order be issued as a precedential order.

¶7Briefly, on August 4, 1994, the Board rejected Beauregard’s computer program product claims on the basis of the printed matter doctrine. Beauregard appealed. The Commissioner now states “that computer programs embodied in a tangible medium, such as floppy diskettes, are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and must be examined under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” The Commissioner states that he agrees with Beauregard’s position on appeal that the printed matter doctrine is not applicable. Thus, the parties are in agreement that no case or controversy presently exists.

¶8Accordingly,

¶9IT IS ORDERED THAT:

¶10The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Commissioner’s concessions.