§

Ex Parte Buchner et al

10287143 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2012)
Ex Parte Buchner et al

20 Cited authorities

  1. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 827 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  2. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 540 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  3. Diamond v. Chakrabarty

    447 U.S. 303 (1980)   Cited 414 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims patent-eligible where "the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility"

  4. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 503 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  5. Parker v. Flook

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

  6. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 380 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

  7. Cybersource Corp.. v. Retail Decisions Inc.

    654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 283 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim whose "steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" is directed to an "unpatentable mental process"

  8. In re Bilski

    545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 270 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-preemption under the second step of what was then called the "Freeman –Walter –Abele test" requires that the claim be "tied to a particular machine or bring about a particular transformation of a particular article"

  9. DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber

    674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 217 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "computer-aided" method for "processing information through a clearinghouse" for car loan applications is patent ineligible

  10. SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 177 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]bsent the voluntary joinder of all co-owners of a patent, a co-owner acting alone" lacks standing to sue for patent infringement

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,141 times   481 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."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,508 times   2283 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)