§

Ex Parte Miller et al

11458071 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)
Ex Parte Miller et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,436 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. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 371 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  3. Cybersource Corp.. v. Retail Decisions Inc.

    654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 283 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim whose "steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" is directed to an "unpatentable mental process"

  4. In re Comiskey

    554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 83 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lack of statutory subject matter, a legal question, is a permissible alternative ground for affirmance of the Board

  5. SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA

    555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 22 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding ineligible a claim which "does no more than call on a 'computing device,' with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely"

  6. Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc.

    Case No. 14-cv-01650-YGR (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2015)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Case No. 14-cv-01650-YGR 09-08-2015 BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC. Defendant. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Re: Dkt. No. 59 Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit—which broadly cover computer-based content comparisons—are invalid as embodying an unpatentable "abstract idea" under Section 101 of the Patent Act. (Dkt. No. 59 ("Mot

  7. Shortridge v. Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC

    655 F. App'x 848 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that because plaintiff conceded that step two of the Alice inquiry is "where the whole question is, and that's what the whole argument is about," commencement of analysis at the step two stage was proper

  8. Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc.

    2016-1054 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2016)

    2016-1054 10-14-2016 BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant-Appellee KIRK ANDERSON, Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Tyler, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by RANDALL T. GARTEISER, CHRISTOPHER A. HONEA; ERNEST YOUNG, Apex, NC. MICHAEL BERTA, Arnold & Porter LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by NICHOLAS LEE, Los Angeles, CA. PER CURIAM NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States District Court for

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,152 times   485 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."

  10. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,521 times   2289 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."

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 187 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"

  12. 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

  13. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing