Service Inc, 27 USPQ
2d 1501 (TTAB, 1993) (green used on wrappers for
[46.] In re Gulack, 703 F, 2d (381 217 USPQ
401, 404 Fed Cir.
Compare In re Freeman, 573 F.2d at 1245 (looking to claim preemption, "whether [the claim] in its entirety wholly preempts that algorithm.") with In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758, 767 205 USPQ
397, 407 (CCPA 1980) (restating it in terms other than preemption, "[i]f it appears that the mathematical algorithm is implemented in a specific manner to define structural relationships between the physical elements of the claim (in apparatus claims) or to refine or limit claim steps (in process claims), the claim being otherwise statutory, the claim passes muster under [section] 101.
(89) 54 USPQ
(2d) 1344 (D Cal 2000) [Ticketmaster 2000].
(31) In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ
Nabisco Biscuit Co., (1938) 305 US 111, 118, 39 USPQ
THE STANDARD OF obviousness for obtaining a patent in a design case was recently examined in the case of In re Harvey, 29 USPQ
2d 1206 (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1993), with respect to a design's underlying concepts.
In particular, he stated "in most cases, the simplicity of the titles reflect the simplicity (and non-novelty) of the patents." In a recent court opinion (In re Oetiker, 25 USPQ
2d, 1443, at 1446), the court stated, "Oetiker's invention is simple.
(149) PhantomALERTInc v Google Inc, 117 USPQ
2d 1433 (ND Cal,
du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ
563 (CCPA 1973), strongly favored Overstock.com.
contains only "published" adjudications, which
(4) See EBay Inc v Bidder's Edge Inc, 100 F Supp (2d) 1058, 54 USPQ