§

Ex Parte RAMACHANDRAN et al

13364423 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)
Ex Parte RAMACHANDRAN et al

22 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,374 times   508 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 774 times   146 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

  3. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank

    776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 599 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to the "abstract idea of 1

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 516 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

  5. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 519 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims on maintaining website look-and-feel patent-eligible because claims were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"

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

    823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 401 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"

  7. Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.

    790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 362 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dependent claims did not salvage the corresponding independent claims from a finding of ineligibility where they did not add an inventive concept

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

    841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 214 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"

  9. Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.

    818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 201 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify genomic DNA in a sample before detecting it

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

    850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 164 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding abstract claims "directed to ... collecting, displaying, and manipulating data"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,064 times   461 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,944 times   960 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,418 times   2200 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 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"

  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

  16. 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)