§

Ex Parte Puttaswamy

12272669 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)
Ex Parte Puttaswamy

16 Cited authorities

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 558 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

  2. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C.

    823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 429 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to a method for recording digital images on a telephone were not directed to an improvement to computer functionality because "they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment" without "describ[ing] a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two" or "any technical details for the tangible components"

  3. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 398 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"

  4. SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC

    898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 271 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an advance in financial mathematical techniques does not constitute an inventive concept

  5. In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent

    639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 291 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions" because such functions are "coextensive with the structure disclosed."

  6. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

    839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 183 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an argument about the absence of complete preemption "misses the mark"

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

    839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 182 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

  8. Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.

    793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 116 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the definition of ‘covered business method patent’ is not limited to products and services of only the financial industry, or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial institutions"

  9. Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., Cubic Corp.

    873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 82 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims relating to a mass-transit fare-payment system, which disclosed no new type of bankcard, turnstile, or database, were directed merely to the abstract ideas of collecting, storing, and recognizing financial information

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1068 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,547 times   2301 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 1 - Establishment

    35 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 518 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

  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 99 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

  16. 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)