§

Ex Parte Ahern et al

13471867 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)
Ex Parte Ahern et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,372 times   507 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. Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.

    728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 234 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims lacked an inventive concept despite identifying several specific components used in the application

  3. Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.

    793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 114 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the definition of ‘covered business method patent’ is not limited to products and services of only the financial industry, or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial institutions"

  4. Shortridge v. Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC

    655 F. App'x 848 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that because plaintiff conceded that step two of the Alice inquiry is "where the whole question is, and that's what the whole argument is about," commencement of analysis at the step two stage was proper

  5. In re Villena

    2016-1062 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)

    2016-1062 10-13-2016 IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA, Appellants BURMAN YORK MATHIS, III, Northern Virginia Intellectual Property Services, Vienna, VA, argued for appellants. NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by ROBERT J. MCMANUS, BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, WILLIAM LAMARCA. PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   459 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."

  7. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,415 times   2197 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."

  8. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

  9. 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

  10. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing