§

Ex Parte KOLLING

13622127 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)
Ex Parte KOLLING

17 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,451 times   522 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 1,574 times   189 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 830 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

  4. Bilski v. Kappos

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

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 556 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

  6. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 505 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  7. Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

    765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 270 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "squarely about creating a contractual relationship" drew on idea of "ancient lineage," even where dependent claims "narrow[ed] to particular types of such relationships"

  8. 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"

  9. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 132 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify cff-DNA in a sample before detecting it

  10. Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc.

    558 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 76 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding patent claim subject matter ineligible under § 101 where district court did not engage in claim construction, and plaintiff "d[id] not explain which terms require construction or how the analysis would change"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,171 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."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,544 times   2301 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 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"

  14. 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)