1. In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 960, 201 USPQ 352, 361 (C. C. P. A. 1979).
2. See, e. g., In re Eltgroth, 419 F.2d 918, 922, 164 USPQ 221 (C. C. P. A. 1970). (“Undoubtedly, the alleged utility of control of the aging process in living organisms and the significant beneficial results flowing therefrom is adequate [to satisfy the utility requirement.] Yet, there is a conspicuous absence of proof thereof….”); see also P. Goldstein, Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines, 493 (2d ed. 1981) (“ ‘Operability,’ in the patent lexicon, is quite different from ‘utility.’ Operability's function is to assist in determinations of [a legitimate] reduction to practice….”).
3. See, e. g., In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 214 USPQ 673 (C. C. P. A. 1982). (“Any process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter constitutes statutory subject matter unless it falls within the judicially determined exceptions to section 101.”).
4. In re Joliot, 270 F.2d 954, 123 USPQ 344 (C. C. P. A. 1959). (Rich, J., concurring).
5. 1 Lipscomb's Walker on Patents, p. 102.