Appeal 2007-1200
Application 09/900,251
As the court observed in Sherwood, the writing of a program may require
varying degrees of skill:
In general, writing a computer program may be a task
requiring the most sublime of the inventive faculty or it
may require only the droning use of clerical skill. The
difference between the two extremes lies in the creation
of mathematical methodology to bridge the gap between
the information one starts with ("the input") and the
information that is desired ("the output").
In re Sherwood, 613 F.2d at 816-17, 204 USPQ at 544; but see Fonar Corp. v.
General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed.Cir.1997) (stating, in the context of a
best mode analysis, "normally, writing code for . . . software is within the skill of
the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been
disclosed").
The claimed invention . . . is not in the details of the
program writing, but in the apparatus and method whose
patentability is based on the claimed combination of
components or steps. . . . The possible design of superior
software, or whether each programmer would work out
the details in the identical way, is not relevant in
determining whether the inventor has complied with the
enablement requirement.
Northern Telecom, 908 F.2d at 941, 15 USPQ2d at 1329.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013