§

Ex Parte Novikov et al

13620318 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2018)
Ex Parte Novikov et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 806 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

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 542 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

  3. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 271 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  4. Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.

    841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 223 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim eligible at step two because it "entails an unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem," and the solution "requires that arguably generic components ... operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality"

  5. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.

    839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 179 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected" were "directed to a combination of . . . abstract-idea categories" despite the claims' recitation of a computer

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

    850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 168 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding abstract claims "directed to ... collecting, displaying, and manipulating data"

  7. 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"

  8. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec

    659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 33 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Finding that claim of a patent directed to a single step of reviewing effects of known immunization schedules was directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, as it did "not including putting this knowledge to practical use" while a claim that required the "further act of immunization in accordance with a lower-risk schedule" moved the claim from "abstract scientific principle to specific application"

  9. Perkinelmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd.

    496 F. App'x 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a comparison step is "an ineligible mental step" when the control sample was naturally occurring

  10. Lendingtree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.

    656 F. App'x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2014-1435 2014-1531 2015-1186 07-25-2016 LENDINGTREE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZILLOW, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant NEXTAG, INC., ADCHEMY, INC., Defendants STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MARTIN BADER, MICHAEL MURPHY; EDWARD V. ANDERSON, Palo Alto, CA. J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by TODD RICHARD GREGORIAN, SAINA

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 times   2273 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 186 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 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)