§

Ex Parte Adjali et al

11238518 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2011)
Ex Parte Adjali et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 834 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  2. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 543 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  3. Diamond v. Chakrabarty

    447 U.S. 303 (1980)   Cited 415 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims patent-eligible where "the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility"

  4. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 505 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  5. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 372 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  6. In re Bilski

    545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 270 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-preemption under the second step of what was then called the "Freeman –Walter –Abele test" requires that the claim be "tied to a particular machine or bring about a particular transformation of a particular article"

  7. In re Comiskey

    554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 83 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lack of statutory subject matter, a legal question, is a permissible alternative ground for affirmance of the Board

  8. In re Nuijten

    500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 62 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Declining to import a tangible medium element into the claims directed to only encoded signals, which were unpatentable under § 101

  9. In re Ferguson

    558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reaffirming that the "useful, concrete, and tangible" result test has no continuing validity

  10. In re Abele

    684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 40 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that electronic transformation of data into a visual depiction of body tissues satisfied the transformation test for patent eligibility

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,412 times   1064 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,165 times   492 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,541 times   2297 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."

  14. 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"

  15. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  16. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  17. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)