§

Ex Parte LYONS et al

13739465 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019)
Ex Parte LYONS et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,400 times   515 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 794 times   151 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 814 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  4. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 536 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  5. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 522 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims on maintaining website look-and-feel patent-eligible because claims were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"

  6. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 500 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  7. Parker v. Flook

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

  8. In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent

    639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 283 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions" because such functions are "coextensive with the structure disclosed."

  9. Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc.

    83 F. Supp. 3d 577 (D. Del. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Civil Action No. 14–92–RGA 2015-03-18 Priceplay.com, Inc., Plaintiff; v. AOL Advertising, Inc., Defendant. Richard D. Kirk, Esq., Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq., Vanessa R. Tiradentes, Esq., Sara E. Bussiere, Esq., Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott M. Daniels, Esq. (argued), Damn A. Auito, Esq., Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Priceplay.com, Inc. David E. Moore, Esq., Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; George F. Pappas

  10. Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc.

    627 F. App'x 925 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    2015-1492 2015-1589 2015-1660 01-07-2016 PRICEPLAY.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AOL ADVERTISING, INC., FACEBOOK INC., GOOGLE INC., Defendants-Appellees SCOTT DANIELS, Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by DARRIN A. AUITO. DARYL JOSEFFER, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Appellee Google Inc., also represented by PAUL ALESSIO MEZZINA; ADAM CONRAD, Charlotte, NC. Appellee AOL Advertising, Inc., also represented

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,106 times   470 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 3,468 times   2253 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 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