§
Ex Parte SMITH

18 Cited authorities

  1. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 740 times   119 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea

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

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 551 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

  3. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 485 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims eligible at step two because the claims recited a "technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering ... content" that "improve the performance of the computer system itself"

  4. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 382 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

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

    792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 325 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding "tailoring information based on [provided] data" is an abstract idea

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

    838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 293 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]"

  7. Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

    765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 270 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "squarely about creating a contractual relationship" drew on idea of "ancient lineage," even where dependent claims "narrow[ed] to particular types of such relationships"

  8. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC

    874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 221 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he claim uses a conventional ordering of steps—first processing the data, then routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception—with conventional technology to achieve its desired result."

  9. 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

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

    811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 169 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that generic computer components such as an "interface," "network," and "database" fail to satisfy the "inventive concept requirement"

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,521 times   2289 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."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 187 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"

  13. 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

  14. 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)