§

Ex Parte GONTHIER et al

13803447 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)
Ex Parte GONTHIER et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,436 times   521 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 817 times   153 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. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 829 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

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

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 531 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"

  5. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  6. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec

    659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 33 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Finding that claim of a patent directed to a single step of reviewing effects of known immunization schedules was directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, as it did "not including putting this knowledge to practical use" while a claim that required the "further act of immunization in accordance with a lower-risk schedule" moved the claim from "abstract scientific principle to specific application"

  7. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc.

    107 F. Supp. 3d 677 (E.D. Tex. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Finding patent invalid where "claims simply recite that the computer code in the program is ‘adapted to provide a sponsor-selected specific award unit item’ that is ‘tailored to demographic and psychographic preferences of a sponsor-selected consumer user,’ and is ‘adapted to provide a sponsor-selected geographic location for fulfillment’ "

  8. Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.

    122 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (M.D. Fla. 2015)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that various computer components recited in the claims failed to add an inventive concept, including “memory device,” “communication device,” “receiver,” “transmitter,” “processing device,” “input device,” “display device,” and “data entry device”

  9. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,522 times   2289 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."

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 187 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"

  11. 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

  12. 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

  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)

  14. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 9 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence