§

Ex Parte Freire et al

11697926 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)
Ex Parte Freire et al

22 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,372 times   507 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 772 times   145 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

  3. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 528 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  4. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 514 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions" are directed to an abstract idea

  5. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 517 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims on maintaining website look-and-feel patent-eligible because claims were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"

  6. Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.

    790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 360 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dependent claims did not salvage the corresponding independent claims from a finding of ineligibility where they did not add an inventive concept

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

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 374 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

  8. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLC

    838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 278 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content is an abstract idea" because it comprises "information distribution that is untethered to any specific or concrete [implementation]"

  9. Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.

    818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 201 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify genomic DNA in a sample before detecting it

  10. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.

    839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 171 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected" were "directed to a combination of . . . abstract-idea categories" despite the claims' recitation of a computer

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,287 times   1030 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 times   459 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."

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,416 times   2199 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 182 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

  16. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)