The IT Law Wiki
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
== Citation ==
'''Citation:''' ''In re'' Wheeling, 413 F.2d 1187, 162 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 588 (C.C.P.A. 1969)([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3285174583462160958&q=%22413+F.2d+1187&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]).
 
  +
 
'''''In re'' Wheeling,''' 413 F.2d 1187, 162 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 588 (C.C.P.A. 1969) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3285174583462160958&q=%22413+F.2d+1187&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]).
   
 
== U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proceedings ==
 
== U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proceedings ==

Revision as of 06:30, 16 January 2011

Citation

In re Wheeling, 413 F.2d 1187, 162 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 588 (C.C.P.A. 1969) (full-text).

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proceedings

Method claims were rejected by the Patent Office as having no novelty other than mental steps. The claims related to the production of an optimum value of a system output function, where the effect of changes in variables upon the function could be determined.

C.C.P.A. Proceedings

On appeal the C.C.P.A. remanded the case for further hearings. The reasoning was that in rejecting claims, the Patent Office failed to state the statutory basis for the rejection. The court further held that the Patent Office must also identify the issues with sufficient clarity that the C.C.P.A. can review them on appeal.