Decision Parameters
Decisions It Cites
Gottschalk v. Benson [409 U.S. 63, 1972]
Diamond v. Chakrabarty [447 U.S. 303, 1980]
Bilski v. Kappos [561 U.S. 593, 2010]
Decisions That Cite It
Cybersource v. Retail Decisions [654 F.3d 1366, 2011]
Rules & Quotes
[ABSTRACT, USEFUL] {1} The invention presents functional and palpable [tangible] applications in the field of computer technology. These inventions address "a need in the art for a method of and apparatus for the halftone rendering of gray scale images in which a digital data processor is utilized in a simple and precise manner to accomplish the halftone rendering." '310 patent column 3, lines 334-0. The fact that some claims in the '310 and '228 patents require a "high contrast film", "a film printer", "a memory", and "printer and display devices" also confirm this court's holding that the invention is not abstract. Indeed, this court notes that inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the market-place are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act.
JSON Specification
Commentary
return to top
