§

Ex Parte INOUE et al

13006311 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)
Ex Parte INOUE et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 835 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  2. 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

  3. Application of Bergy

    596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 30 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing Bergstrom as a case decided under § 102

  4. In re Abrams

    188 F.2d 165 (C.C.P.A. 1951)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeals No. 5723. March 6, 1951. Rehearing Denied April 10, 1951. Sidney A. Johnson, Dallas, Tex. (Richard K. Stevens, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, and WORLEY, Judges. GARRETT, Chief Judge. By this appeal appellant seeks review and reversal of the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent

  5. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker

    146 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1944)   Cited 9 times

    No. 10513. December 28, 1944. Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Central Division; Peirson M. Hall, Judge. Patent infringement suit by Cranford P. Walker and others against the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company. From the portion of the decree holding two patents valid and infringed, the defendant appeals, and from the part of the decree holding a patent invalid, the plaintiffs cross-appeal. Reversed in part and affirmed in part. Frank

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  7. 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"

  8. 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