§

Ex Parte Root et al

11818836 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)
Ex Parte Root et al

25 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,454 times   522 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 831 times   153 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. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 278 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable

  4. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)

    792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 328 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding "tailoring information based on [provided] data" is an abstract idea

  5. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLC

    838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 299 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content is an abstract idea" because it comprises "information distribution that is untethered to any specific or concrete [implementation]"

  6. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 275 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  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. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.

    811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 171 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that generic computer components such as an "interface," "network," and "database" fail to satisfy the "inventive concept requirement"

  9. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.

    758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 148 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a process of gathering and combining data was patent ineligible because it did not require "input from a physical device"

  10. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 133 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify cff-DNA in a sample before detecting it

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 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"

  14. Section 101 - Executive departments

    5 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 136 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Listing the Department of Commerce as an Executive department

  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)