🚀 go-pugleaf

Someone recently posted a message mentioning a recent case decided by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Arrhythmia v. Corazonix
(March 12, 1992, 1992 US App Lexis 4202).
 
Thank you, whoever it was.
 
I wrote an article published today (April 6, 1992) discussing the case.
 
Briefly, in the article I observe that while most CAFC cases to date have 
arisen during prosecution of a patent application, this one is perhaps the 
first in which the case reached the CAFC as a result of litigation where 
the issue was patentable subject matter.
 
An accused infringer filed a motion in federal District Court asking that 
the patent be held invalid as not directed to patentable subject matter.
The accused infringer argued the patent covered an algorithm merely.  The
District Court agreed, and granted the motion.
 
On appeal, the CAFC reversed the finding of invalidity.
 
The opinion discusses many of the often-cited cases about algorithms and
patenting software, and the way I read it, the case comes out strengthening
the situation for those who want to patent systems containing software.
 
In a footnote I mention comp.patents as an active forum for discussion 
on this and related topics.
 
Anybody who would like a copy of the article, please send a postal 
address.
 
Carl Oppedahl
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228

[mod- hmm, Maybe a post would be good...]