§

Ex Parte Hartman et al

14040479 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2019)
Ex Parte Hartman et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,442 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 822 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. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 391 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"

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

    790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 374 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

  5. RecogniCorp LLC v. Nintendo Co.

    855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 151 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a method in which " user starts with data, codes that data using at least one multiplication operation, and ends with a new form of data" was directed to an abstract idea

  6. SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 178 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]bsent the voluntary joinder of all co-owners of a patent, a co-owner acting alone" lacks standing to sue for patent infringement

  7. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.

    758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 147 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a process of gathering and combining data was patent ineligible because it did not require "input from a physical device"

  8. SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA

    555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 22 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding ineligible a claim which "does no more than call on a 'computing device,' with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely"

  9. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,531 times   2295 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 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"

  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