§

Ex Parte Berger

12209886 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)
Ex Parte Berger

12 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,407 times   519 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. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

    569 U.S. 576 (2013)   Cited 455 times   147 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

  3. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 723 times   119 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea

  4. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 369 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  5. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

    839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 174 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an argument about the absence of complete preemption "misses the mark"

  6. Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC

    887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 54 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent claim which purported to improve self-verifying voting systems was directed to the abstract human activity of voting despite describing physical components such as ballots

  7. Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.

    890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming grant of summary judgment of patent ineligibility where improvements stated in specification were not recited in claims at issue

  8. Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

    876 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding "idea that a customer may pay for items ordered from a remote seller at a third-party's local establishment" to be "the type of fundamental business practice that, when implemented using generic computer technology, is not patent-eligible"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,121 times   477 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."

  10. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,480 times   2269 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."

  11. 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"

  12. 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