Ex Parte King et al

35 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 914 times   374 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. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 668 times   150 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
  3. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 231 times   76 Legal Analyses
    Finding that claims at issue were directed to laws of nature
  4. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 446 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter
  5. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 444 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula
  6. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 333 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable
  7. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 497 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"
  8. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 297 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding abstract claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis"
  9. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 308 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101
  10. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 264 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a software-based invention that "improve the performance of the computer system itself" recites patent-eligible subject matter (alteration in original)
  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 6,435 times   730 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 5,400 times   340 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 2,680 times   1660 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful ... composition of matter" to "obtain a patent therefor"
  14. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 291 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting addition of "new matter"
  15. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 143 times   23 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"
  16. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 92 times   7 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

  17. § 41.37 Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 26 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well