§

Ex Parte Saito et al

12354048 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2017)
Ex Parte Saito et al

19 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,441 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 830 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 552 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

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

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 391 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"

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

    839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 179 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

  6. 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

  7. 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”

  8. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.

    850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 109 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the features constituting the inventive concept in step two of Mayo/Alice "must be more than 'well-understood, routine, conventional activity'" (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298)

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 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 3,529 times   2290 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 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

  15. 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

  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)