§

Ex Parte Gardiner et al

10969313 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 21, 2009)
Ex Parte Gardiner et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 545 times   131 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. 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"

  4. In re Comiskey

    554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 83 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lack of statutory subject matter, a legal question, is a permissible alternative ground for affirmance of the Board

  5. In re Nuijten

    500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 62 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Declining to import a tangible medium element into the claims directed to only encoded signals, which were unpatentable under § 101

  6. In re Ferguson

    558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reaffirming that the "useful, concrete, and tangible" result test has no continuing validity

  7. In re Nuijten

    515 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

    No. 2006-1371. February 11, 2008. Jack E. Haken, Philips Intellectual Property Standards, of Briarcliff Manor, NY, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for the appellant. Of counsel was Larry Liberchuk. Stephen Walsh, Acting Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, filed a response to the petition for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the response were Thomas W. Krause and Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitors. Before MICHEL

  8. Application of Steele

    305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  9. In re Rice

    132 F.2d 140 (C.C.P.A. 1942)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 4646. December 1, 1942. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 194,981. Proceedings in the matter of the application of Harlow Gale Rice for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Emery, Holcombe Miller, of Washington, D.C. (Charles F. Miller, Jr., of Washington, D.C., of counsel) for appellant

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,547 times   2303 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 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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 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)