§

Ex Parte Lebrun

14686771 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)
Ex Parte Lebrun

17 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,359 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 764 times   145 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. Bilski v. Kappos

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

  4. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 527 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 507 times   38 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. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 453 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims eligible at step two because the claims recited a "technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering ... content" that "improve the performance of the computer system itself"

  7. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 497 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  8. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 369 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  9. Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.

    728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 234 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims lacked an inventive concept despite identifying several specific components used in the application

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

    850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 162 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding abstract claims "directed to ... collecting, displaying, and manipulating data"

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,399 times   2189 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."

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)