[JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] In re Heritage (150 F.2d 554, 1945 Jun 22)
Decision Parameters
- Case: [JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] In re Heritage
- Type:
- Date: 1945 Jun 22
- Code: 150 F.2d 554
- Court: Federal Circuit (CCPA)
- Vote: 5-0
- URL: casetext.com/case/application-of-heritage-3
- Patent:
Decisions It Cites
-
Don Lee v. Walker [61 F.2d 58, 1932]
In re Bolongaro [62 F.2d 1059, 1933]
Decisions That Cite It
Rules & Quotes
[JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] The feature of appealed claims 1 and 2 which is relied on for patentable novelty is the mental process of making a selection of the amount of coating material to be used in accordance with a predetermined system. Such purely mental acts are not proper subject matter for protection under the patent statutes, as held by the tribunals of the Patent Office. See In re Cooper et al., 134 F.2d 630, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 946; Don Lee, Inc., v. Walker, 9 Cir., 61 F.2d 58; In re Bolongaro, 62 F.2d 1059, 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 845.[JUDICIAL ERROR - MENTAL] 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". This decision should not be a precedent for any decision on mental steps.