§

Ex Parte Hartmann et al

11903363 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015)
Ex Parte Hartmann et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,362 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. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   169 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"

  3. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 805 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  4. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,154 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  5. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 585 times   76 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  6. Koito Manufacturing Co., v. Turn-Key-Tech

    381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 138 times
    Holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it "failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that reference met the limitations of the claims"

  7. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.

    774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 49 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing the appropriate comparison being between the primers and "the relevant portion of the naturally occurring sequence"

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

    555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 20 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. Perkinelmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd.

    496 F. App'x 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a comparison step is "an ineligible mental step" when the control sample was naturally occurring

  10. Q.I. Press Controls v. Lee

    752 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 10 times

    Nos. 2012–1630 2012–1631. 2014-10-15 Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS, B.V., Appellant, v. Michelle K. LEE, Deputy Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Appellee, and Quad/Tech, Inc., Cross–Appellant. David D. Langfitt, Locks Law Firm, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. Sydney O. Johnson, Jr., Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Nathan K. Kelley, Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,280 times   1025 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 6,056 times   449 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 3,404 times   2192 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 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing