Gottschalk v. Benson
| Gottschalk v. Benson | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 16, 1972 Decided November 20, 1972 |
|
| Full case name | Gottschalk, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Benson, et al. |
| Citations | 409 U.S. 63 (more)
93 S. Ct. 253; 34 L. Ed. 2d 273; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 129; 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 673
|
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
| Subsequent history | Diamond v. Diehr, Diamond v. Chakrabarty |
| Holding | |
| Respondents' method for converting numerical information from binary-coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers, for use in programming conventional general-purpose digital computers is merely a series of mathematical calculations or mental steps and does not constitute a patentable "process" within the meaning of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 100 (b). Pp. 64-73. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Marshall, Rehnquist |
| Stewart, Blackmun, and Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| § 101 of the Patent Act of 1952 | |
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the 19th century. The ruling stated "Direct attempts to patent programs have been rejected [and] indirect attempts to obtain patents and avoid the rejection ... have confused the issue further and should not be permitted." The case was argued on October 16, 1972 and was decided November 20, 1972.
The case revolves around an patent application filed by inventors Gary Benson and Arthur Tabbot, for a method for converting binary-coded decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals on a general purpose digital computer. The patent examiner at the United States Patent Office, now called the United States Patent and Trademark Office or PTO, rejected the patent application as being directed to a mathematical expression. Pure mathematical expressions had been held to be unpatentable under earlier patent laws in Mackay Co. v. Radio Corp., 306 U.S. 86 (1939). The applicant appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection. The applicant further appealed to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. The Court reversed the Board. Finally, Commissioner of Patents Robert Gottschalk filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
...
Wikipedia