§

Ex Parte Novikov et al

12645481 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)
Ex Parte Novikov et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,372 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. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank

    776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 597 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to the "abstract idea of 1

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 514 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

  4. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

    772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 490 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea

  5. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)

    792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 315 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit" is an abstract idea that involves a method of organizing human activity

  6. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 328 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  7. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.

    838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 108 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in Alice step one, "it is often helpful to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or merely adding conventional computer component to well-known business practices," with the latter being abstract

  8. Morsa v. Facebook, Inc.

    77 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (C.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that "targeting customers based on demographic criteria; requiring the bid amount to be ‘modifiable’; making the advertisements ‘searchable’; requiring the user to be the source of the demographic information; altering the display of the advertisement in various ways; ... using ‘negative’ criteria to determine not to present an advertisement to a given user ... altering a given advertisement's display based on its ‘performance and/or ... popularity’; requiring the advertisements to be delivered to users in a specific geographic location or on a specific wireless device; dictating that the advertisements be delivered via video or audio; and collecting user data in various ways" were not inventive concepts sufficient to confer patent eligibility

  9. Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 13-1771-RGA (D. Del. Sep. 3, 2014)   Cited 18 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding abstract the idea of "offering something to a customer based on his or her interest in something else[]"

  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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,944 times   959 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,416 times   2199 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 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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)