§

Ex Parte Rohatgi

12857556 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)
Ex Parte Rohatgi

17 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,447 times   521 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 833 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  3. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 616 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  4. Typhoon Touch Technologies v. Dell, Inc.

    659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 203 times
    Holding that a patent applicant narrowed its application in a response to the examiner's rejection on prior art grounds

  5. Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.

    520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 213 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, while there is a presumption that a claim term will be construed consistently when used throughout the claims, there is no requirement that a claim term be construed uniformly, particularly if it would lead to a “nonsensical reading”

  6. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.

    673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 123 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding indefinite a claim reciting a computer-implemented means-plus-function term where "[t]he specification merely provide[d] functional language and d[id] not contain any step-by-step process" for performing the claimed function

  7. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  8. Telcordia Tech. v. Cisco Systems

    612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that “controller” was sufficient disclosure because “[t]he record shows that an ordinary artisan would have recognized the controller as an electronic device with a known structure”

  9. Application of Otto

    312 F.2d 937 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6901. February 13, 1963. Clarence M. Fisher, Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Barrows Taylor, Washington, D.C. (John T. Roberts, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the Primary Examiner's rejection

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,412 times   1063 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 6,165 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 3,539 times   2297 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 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 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  17. 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)