§

Ex Parte Beaudenon et al

14051354 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)
Ex Parte Beaudenon et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,420 times   520 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 807 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. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 370 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  4. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC

    859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 115 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that method-of-detection claims were "directed to a natural law" at step one of the Alice inquiry where the claims "use[d] well-known techniques to execute the claimed method" and had "no meaningful non-routine steps"

  5. Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharms. Int'l Ltd.

    887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 82 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he contents of the label itself may permit the inference of specific intent to encourage, recommend, or promote infringement"

  6. Matter of Application of Richman

    563 F.2d 1026 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 77-519. October 6, 1977. Melvin P. Williams, attorney of record, Hartford, Conn., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Thomas E. Lynch, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board"), unchanged

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,372 times   1046 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

  8. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,499 times   2273 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."

  9. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  10. 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

  11. Section 1.136 - 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)