§

Angela Richards. Jones

2018008427 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2020)
Angela Richards. Jones

19 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,441 times   521 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

  2. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 822 times   153 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

  3. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 552 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions" are directed to an abstract idea

  4. Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.

    728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 236 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event" is an abstract idea

  5. SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

    918 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 129 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to supplement record where motion to supplement was filed after completion of the pending motion

  6. In re Smith

    815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 31 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "appending purely conventional steps to an abstract idea does not supply a sufficiently inventive concept"

  7. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  8. In re Rudy

    2019-2301 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2020)   Cited 12 times   4 Legal Analyses

    2019-2301 04-24-2020 IN RE: CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY, Appellant CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY, Port Huron, MI, pro se. MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, DANIEL KAZHDAN. PROST, Chief Judge. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 07/425,360. CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY, Port Huron, MI, pro se. MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the

  9. In re Leithem

    661 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 17 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the Board issued a new ground of rejection despite the fact that the Board “agreed with Leithem” that Novak did not teach a fluffed pulp

  10. In re Biedermann

    733 F.3d 329 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1080. 2013-10-18 In re Lutz BIEDERMANN and Jurgen Harms. Luke Dauchot, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Nimalka R. Wickramasekera and Benjamin A. Herbert. Of counsel on the brief was Mark Garscia, Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, of Glendale, CA. Monica B. Lateef, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Nathan K. Kelley, Deputy Solicitor, and

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,530 times   2291 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  13. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by

  14. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and