§

Ex Parte Cornea-Hasegan

10328572 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2009)
Ex Parte Cornea-Hasegan

17 Cited authorities

  1. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 542 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  2. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 505 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  3. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 371 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  4. 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"

  5. State St. Bank Trust v. Sig. Fin. G

    149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 60 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the means-plus-function elements of the claims on appeal all corresponded to supporting structures disclosed in the written description

  6. In re Comiskey

    499 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "mental processes," "processes of human thinking," and "systems that depend for their operation on human intelligence alone" are not patent-eligible subject matter under Benson

  7. Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford

    214 U.S. 366 (1909)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366, 29 Sup.Ct. 652, 53 L.Ed. 1034, the patent in suit was for an improvement in the method of making expanded sheet metal.

  8. ATT CORP. v. EXCEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC

    172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 25 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding patentable "a process that uses the Boolean principle in order to determine the value of the PIC indicator" and that "require[d] the use of switches and computers"

  9. In re Grams

    888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 33 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a pre-solution step of gathering data incapable of imparting patent-eligibility under § 101

  10. In re Schrader

    22 F.3d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a data gathering step of entering bids was "insufficient to impart patentability to a claim involving the solving of a mathematical algorithm"

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,529 times   2291 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."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well