§
Ex Parte BHAGAT

15 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,434 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. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,410 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

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

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 817 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

  4. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Cellzdirect, Inc.

    827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 163 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept "when they amount to nothing more than observing or identifying the ineligible concept itself

  5. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States

    850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 148 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "claims directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform" were not abstract

  6. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 131 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify cff-DNA in a sample before detecting it

  7. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.

    432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prior-art reference anticipated claims 1-4 and 7, but not claims 8, 9, and 13, because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation

  8. One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In One-E-Way, which involved a patent for a wireless digital audio system, the defendant argued that the term “virtually free from interference” was indefinite.

  9. In re Oelrich

    666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 93 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" to establish inherency (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer , 102 F.2d 212, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1939) )

  10. In re Bhagat

    2016-2525 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2018)   1 Legal Analyses

    2016-2525 03-16-2018 IN RE: URVASHI BHAGAT, Appellant URVASHI BHAGAT, Palo Alto, CA, pro se. NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 12/426,034. URVASHI BHAGAT, Palo Alto, CA, pro se. NATHAN K. KELLEY

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,393 times   1049 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,016 times   1014 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,515 times   2288 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 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"

  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