§

Ex Parte Olof-Ors et al

11408804 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)
Ex Parte Olof-Ors et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 744 times   119 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea

  2. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

    881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 551 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"

  3. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 488 times   56 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"

  4. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 304 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  5. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. LTD

    927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 273 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "at least about" was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent

  6. Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc

    325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 129 times
    Finding that there was no record evidence recounting the amount of experimentation one of skill in the art would require to develop the claimed invention based on the patent's disclosure

  7. Agilent Tech. v. Affymetrix

    567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's holding that an applicant's written description was adequate because the court erred in its claim construction

  8. In re Wright

    866 F.2d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 31 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that fact that exact words in question are not in specification is "not important"

  9. In re Warmerdam

    33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 20 times
    Holding unpatentable a process for controlling objects to avoid collisions which described “nothing more than the manipulation of basic mathematical constructs, the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea’ ”

  10. Application of Moore

    439 F.2d 1232 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 46 times
    Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,406 times   1058 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,157 times   488 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."

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,529 times   2290 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."

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  15. 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