In re Johnson (589 F.2d 1070, 1979 Feb 15)
Decision Parameters
 Case: In re Johnson
 Type: [PHYSICAL, ALGORITHM, USEFUL]
 Date: 1979 Feb 15
 Code: 589 F.2d 1070
 Court: Federal Circuit (CCPA)
 Vote: 50
 URL: casetext.com/case/applicationofjohnson7
 Patent:

O'Reilly v. Morse [56 U.S. 15, 1853]
Gottschalk v. Benson [409 U.S. 63, 1972]
In re Chatfield [545 F.2d 152, 1976]
Parker v. Flook [437 U.S. 584, 1978]

In re Alappat [33 F.3d 1526, 1994]
Rules & Quotes
[PHYSICAL] {1} The products produced by applicants' claimed processes are new, noiseless seismic traces recorded on a record medium and not mere mathematical values. Thus, the significant limitations recited in the claims of operating on a recorded, unenhanced, seismic trace to produce and record a new seismic trace lead us to find the claims to recite statutory processes and not methods of calculating as were present in Flook.
{2} The products produced by applicants' claimed processes are new, noiseless seismic traces recorded on a record medium and not mere mathematical values. Thus, the significant limitations recited in the claims of operating on a recorded, unenhanced, seismic trace to produce and record a new seismic trace lead us to find the claims to recite statutory processes and not methods of calculating as were present in Flook.
{3} Under the second step of our analysis, we must determine whether each claim as a whole, including all of its steps, merely recites a mathematical formula or a method of calculation. This analysis requires careful interpretation of each claim in the light of its supporting disclosure to determine whether or not it merely defines a method of solving a mathematical problem. If it does not, then it defines statutory subject matter, namely, a "process".
Review Articles and Papers
Brief Comments and Observations
JSON Specification