Portuguese   Portuguese
English   English

In re Prater II (415 F.2d 1393, 1969 Aug 14)

Decision Parameters

Decisions It Cites

    Cochrane v. Deener [94 U.S. 780, 1877]
    In re Abrams [188 F.2d 165, 1951]
    In re Yuan [188 F.2d 377, 1951]
    In re Prater I [415 F.2d 1378, 1968]

Decisions That Cite It

Rules & Quotes

[MENTAL] {1} We are in agreement with appellants that this case is not controlled by Abrams, Yuan, or Cochrane v. Deener, as we view those cases.

[MENTAL] {2} Thus, Abrams disclosed and claimed a process which could only be performed in the mind insofar as the teachings of the application were concerned. Abrams therefore presents a significant difference from the factual situation in the present case in which the teachings of the specification provide a full disclosure of at least analog apparatus for carrying out the claimed steps without requiring any steps to be performed in the human mind. ... Again [in Yuan], as in Abrams, insofar as the disclosure was concerned, the process (or the critical step thereof) was one that required the use of the human mind — indeed, a purely mental process or step. ... Although in view of our decision here we find it unnecessary to analyze and/or review in depth the so-called "mental steps" doctrine, it would appear that the disclosure of apparatus for performing the process wholly without human intervention merely shows that the disclosed process does not fall within the so-called "mental steps" exclusion.

JSON Specification


return to top