In re Waldbaum’s Empirical Analysis
559 F.2d 611 · 1977
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 1981
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 100
Relies on Gottschalk v. Benson · Kropa v. Robie · In re Chatfield · In re Christensen · In re Benson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]laims 1, 2, and 19 do not represent “no less of a ‘computer processing program’ than did claim 8 in Benson," because they are limited to the specific application of calculating the number of busy and idle lines in a telephone system. They would not preempt all uses of the algorithm [citing uses of the algorithm outside of the claimed invention], but would preempt only use of the algorithm in calculating the number of busy and idle lines in a telephone system. At the same time, it must be recognized that a patent on these claims would, in practical effect, be a patent on the algorithm itself — albeit in its limited, specific application to calculating the number of busy and idle lines in a telephone system. * * * In view of the foregoing, we hold that claims 1, 2, and 19 do not define a statutory process within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 and 101. [Id. at 617, 194 USPQ at 469-70 (footnotes omitted)].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“9. A method for controlling the operation of a data processor to determine the relative numbers of 0’s and l’s in a data word; said data processor including a memory for storing data and instruction words at respective addresses; means for normally controlling the sequential execution of successively addressed instruction words; a plurality of registers; means for storing memory data words in said register; means for comparing the contents of predetermined ones of said plurality of registers; and means for controlling operations in the data processor in accordance with the instruction word being executed; comprising the steps of: (1) controlling said storing means to store a memory data word whose relative numbers of 0’s and l’s must be determined in a first one of said registers; (2) executing a series of identical instruction words, each of which controls the data word in said one register to have one of its bits of a predetermined value changed to the opposite value, and controls a transfer to be made to the instruction word at a specified address and the address of the next instruction word to be placed in a second of said registers if said first register contains bits of only said opposite value, and (3) controlling said comparing means to compare the address of a predetermined one of the instruction words in said series with the content of said second register when a transfer is made during the execution of one of the instruction words in said series to determine the re”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Gelnovatch
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.