53 F.3d 1583, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1383
`(Cite as: 53 F.3d 1583)
`
`Page 1
`
`United States Court of Appeals,
`Federal Circuit.
`In re Gary M. BEAUREGARD, Larry K. Loucks,
`Khoa Dang Nguyen and Robert J. Urquhart.
`
`No. 95–1054.
`May 12, 1995.
`
`Appeal was taken from order of the Board of
`Patent Appeals and Interferences rejecting com-
`puter program product claims on basis of printed
`matter doctrine. On Commissioner's motion to dis-
`miss appeal, the Court of Appeals, Archer, Chief
`Judge, held that appeal did not present case or con-
`troversy, where parties agreed that printed matter
`doctrine did not apply to computer program product
`claims.
`
`Vacated and remanded.
`
`West Headnotes
`
`Patents 291
`
`324.2
`
`291 Patents
`291XII Infringement
`291XII(B) Actions
`291k324 Appeal
`291k324.2 k. Decisions reviewable.
`Most Cited Cases
`Appeal from decision of the Board of Patent
`Appeals and Interferences, rejecting computer pro-
`gram product claims on basis of printed matter doc-
`trine, did not present case or controversy, where
`parties agreed that printed matter doctrine did not
`apply, and Commissioner of Patents and Trade-
`marks stated that computer programs embodied in
`tangible medium, such as floppy diskettes, were
`patentable. 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 101–103.
`
`ents and Trademarks motion to dismiss for lack of
`jurisdiction.
`
`Robert Greene Sterne, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein &
`Fox, Washington, DC, was on Appellants' response
`to the Com'rs motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdic-
`tion.
`
`ON MOTION
`ORDER
`ARCHER, Chief Judge.
`The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
`moves to dismiss Gary M. Beauregard *1584 et
`al.'s appeal. Beauregard responds stating that va-
`catur or reversal of the Board of Patent Appeals and
`Interferences' decision and remand to the Board is
`the appropriate disposition. Beauregard requests
`that the remand order be issued as a precedential
`order.
`
`Briefly, on August 4, 1994, the Board rejected
`Beauregard's computer program product claims on
`the basis of the printed matter doctrine. Beauregard
`appealed. The Commissioner now states “that com-
`puter programs embodied in a tangible medium,
`such as floppy diskettes, are patentable subject mat-
`ter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and must be examined
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” The Commis-
`sioner states that he agrees with Beauregard's posi-
`tion on appeal that the printed matter doctrine is not
`applicable. Thus, the parties are in agreement that
`no case or controversy presently exists.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The Board's decision is vacated and the case is
`remanded for further proceedings in accordance
`with the Commissioner's concessions.
`
`*1583 Nancy J. Linck, Sol., Albin F. Drost, Deputy
`Sol. and Richard Torczon, Associate Sol., Office of
`the Sol., Arlington, VA, were on the Com'r of Pat-
`
`C.A.Fed.,1995.
`In re Beauregard
`53 F.3d 1583, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1383
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG-1056
`
`

`
`53 F.3d 1583, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1383
`(Cite as: 53 F.3d 1583)
`
`END OF DOCUMENT
`
`Page 2
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`2