Ex Parte Gustin et al

25 Cited authorities

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
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,562 times 187 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"
Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 829 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 740 times 119 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea
Berkheimer v. HP Inc.
881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Cited 547 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"
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
McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.
837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 387 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"
Parker v. Flook
437 U.S. 584 (1978) Cited 371 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable
Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert
512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 304 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”
Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.
728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 236 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that "generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event" is an abstract idea
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,153 times 485 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."
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,521 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."
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"
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

Ex Parte Gustin et al

25 Cited authorities

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

Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea

Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"

Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"

Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”

Holding that "generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event" is an abstract idea

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

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"