Portuguese   Portuguese
English   English

[JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] In re Abrams (188 F.2d 165, 1951 Apr 10)

Decision Parameters

  • Case: [JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] In re Abrams
  • Type:
  • Date: 1951 Apr 10
  • Code: 188 F.2d 165
  • Court: Federal Circuit (CCPA)
  • Vote: 5-0
  • URL: casetext.com/case/in-re-abrams
  • Patent:

Decisions It Cites

    Don Lee v. Walker [61 F.2d 58, 1932]
    Haliburton Oil Well v. Walker [146 F.2d 817, 1944]

Decisions That Cite It

Rules & Quotes

[JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] {1} The Halliburton v. Walker case, supra seems to us to be sound in its reasoning and directly applicable here. ... [Quoting Haliburton] "We think these mental steps, even if novel, are not patentable. Cf. Don Lee, Inc. v. Walker, Ninth Circuit, 61 F.2d 58."

[JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] Haliburton v. Walker cannot be sound reasoning about mental steps, if it rests on a decision, Don Juan, that nowhere mentions mental steps. The Don Lee decision is a long ruling on the issue of patent novelty, and nowhere uses terms such as "mental", "mind", and "thought". Thus, this first, circuit court, decision using the concept of "mental steps" rests on a decision that nowhere mentions "mental steps". It is judicial error to cite Don Juan as a basis for a banning method patents for being "mental steps". Worse, nowhere does Haliburton define very complicated terms such as "mental" and "thought". In re Abrams should not be a precedent for any decision on mental steps.

JSON Specification


return to top