§

Ex Parte Irby et al

11226653 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)
Ex Parte Irby et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,435 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. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank

    776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 618 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to the "abstract idea of 1

  4. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 551 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions" are directed to an abstract idea

  5. 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

  6. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

    839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 181 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an argument about the absence of complete preemption "misses the mark"

  7. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

    850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 173 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding abstract claims "directed to ... collecting, displaying, and manipulating data"

  8. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.

    859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 92 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the now-expired scheme for covered business method patents, § 324(e) did not bar review of post-institution estoppel determinations under § 325(e)

  9. Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd.

    890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 21 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the United States Patent Office could adopt a construction that neither party proposed

  10. Lendingtree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.

    656 F. App'x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2014-1435 2014-1531 2015-1186 07-25-2016 LENDINGTREE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZILLOW, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant NEXTAG, INC., ADCHEMY, INC., Defendants STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MARTIN BADER, MICHAEL MURPHY; EDWARD V. ANDERSON, Palo Alto, CA. J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by TODD RICHARD GREGORIAN, SAINA

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   482 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."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,519 times   2288 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."

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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)