In re Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.2d 879 · 1979
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 1983
most recently cited
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Gottschalk v. Benson · Parker v. Flook · Dann v. Johnston · In re Freeman · In re Chatfield
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Benson Court used the term “algorithm” in a specific sense, namely, “a procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem.” ... Using this definition, we have carefully examined the claims in this case and are unable to find any direct or indirect recitation of a procedure for solving a mathematical problem. Translating between natural languages is not a mathematical problem as we understand the term to have been used in Benson . Nor are any of the recited steps in the claims mere procedures for solving mathematical problems. Since the claims do not directly or indirectly recite an algorithm, the claims can not preempt an algorithm. We hold, therefore, that the claims in this appeal are not rendered nonstatutory by Benson .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.