§

Ex Parte Birle et al

10064745 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 1, 2010)
Ex Parte Birle et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 821 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  2. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 538 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  3. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 502 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  4. Computervision Corp. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp.

    469 U.S. 857 (1984)   Cited 154 times
    Applying Federal Circuit law on review of denial of post-verdict motion

  5. Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp.

    732 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 369 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when "a court does not discuss certain propositions," that "does not make the decision inadequate or suggest the court failed to understand them"

  6. Gerber Garment Technology v. Lectra Systems

    916 F.2d 683 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 55 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving of the description of the purpose of § 121 set forth in concurring opinion in Studiengesellschaft

  7. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  8. In re Abrams

    188 F.2d 165 (C.C.P.A. 1951)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeals No. 5723. March 6, 1951. Rehearing Denied April 10, 1951. Sidney A. Johnson, Dallas, Tex. (Richard K. Stevens, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. GARRETT, Chief Judge. By this appeal appellant seeks review and reversal of the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent

  9. Commonwealth v. Matlack

    4 U.S. 303 (1804)   Cited 2 times

    SEPTEMBER TERM, 1804. M`Kean, attorney-general, for the commonwealth. Dallas, for the defendant. THE defendant had been clerk of the Senate; and in that character received 900 dollars, as a fund to defray the contingent expenses of the house, during several sessions. The Committee of accounts called upon him for a settlement; but he declined exhibiting his vouchers, unless they would allow him a certain retrospective compensation, to which he contended that he was entitled, under an act passed on

  10. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 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."

  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

  13. 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

  14. 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)

  15. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by