In re Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
589 F.2d 1070 · 1978
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1996
1 district ·
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. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Gottschalk v. Benson · Parker v. Flook · O'Reilly v. Morse · Meers v. Sundstrand Corp.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Warmerdam · In re Alappat“Very simply, our decision today recognizes that modern technology has fostered a class of inventions which are most accurately described as computer-implemented processes. Such processes are encompassed within 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the same principles as other machine-implemented processes, subject to judicially determined exceptions, inter alia, mathematical formulas, methods of calculation, and mere ideas. The overbroad analysis of the PTO errors in failing to differentiate between a computer program, i. e., sets of instructions within a computer, and computer-implemented processes wherein a computer or other automated machine performs one or more of the recited process steps. This distinction must not be overlooked because there is no reason for treating a computer differently from any other apparatus employed to perform a recited process step.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Gelnovatch“any calculations which may be performed in practicing the process ... are but a part of the process which includes the other recited steps. ... [They] are incident to producing a noise-free signal trace from a reference trace. [Id. at 1080, 200 USPQ at 209 (emphasis added).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Abele
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.