§

Ex Parte Peters et al

14324264 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)
Ex Parte Peters et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,431 times   520 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. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 828 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  3. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 736 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

  4. 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"

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

    838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 114 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

  6. Research Corp. Tech. v. Microsoft Corp.

    627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 110 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a process is patent eligible subject matter when it “presents functional and palpable application in the field of computer technology.”

  7. Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC

    2013-1663 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2014)   Cited 70 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims were directed to the abstract idea of preventing “tampering problem” and “other security risks” during commercial transactions

  8. In re Smith

    815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 31 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "appending purely conventional steps to an abstract idea does not supply a sufficiently inventive concept"

  9. In re Sovish

    769 F.2d 738 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    Appeal No. 85-781. July 26, 1985. James W. Geriak, Lyon Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellants. With him on brief were Roy L. Anderson and William E. Mouzavires, Lyon Lyon, Washington, D.C. Fred W. Sherling, Associate Solicitor, U.S. Patent Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before RICH, Circuit

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,144 times   481 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."

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,511 times   2284 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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)