From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.
In re Alappat
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
33 F.3d 1526 (1994)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Kuriappan Alappat, Edward Averill, and James Larsen (collectively, Alappat) (plaintiffs) filed a patent application for a rasterizer of an oscilloscope. The rasterizer was an electronic device that made waveform displays clearer, similar to making a pixelated TV picture clearer. The rasterizer relied on mathematical formulae that were generated electronically. The patent examiner rejected the patent application on the ground that the device was not subject matter that patent law was designed to protect. The Board of Patent Appeals affirmed, ruling that the invention relied on an unpatentable mathematical algorithm. Alappat appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rich, J.)
Concurrence (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
