§

Ex Parte Smith et al

13533822 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)
Ex Parte Smith et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,450 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. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 752 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

  3. SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC

    898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 270 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an advance in financial mathematical techniques does not constitute an inventive concept

  4. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

    839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 182 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an argument about the absence of complete preemption "misses the mark"

  5. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  6. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  7. Hyatt v. Dudas

    492 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the patent examiner's initial rejection in which the examiner found failure to satisfy the written description requirement because “the written description did not support the particular claimed combination of elements”— i.e., “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination ”

  8. Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc.

    83 F. Supp. 3d 577 (D. Del. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Civil Action No. 14–92–RGA 2015-03-18 Priceplay.com, Inc., Plaintiff; v. AOL Advertising, Inc., Defendant. Richard D. Kirk, Esq., Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq., Vanessa R. Tiradentes, Esq., Sara E. Bussiere, Esq., Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott M. Daniels, Esq. (argued), Damn A. Auito, Esq., Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Priceplay.com, Inc. David E. Moore, Esq., Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; George F. Pappas

  9. In re Schrader

    22 F.3d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a data gathering step of entering bids was "insufficient to impart patentability to a claim involving the solving of a mathematical algorithm"

  10. Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc.

    627 F. App'x 925 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    2015-1492 2015-1589 2015-1660 01-07-2016 PRICEPLAY.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AOL ADVERTISING, INC., FACEBOOK INC., GOOGLE INC., Defendants-Appellees SCOTT DANIELS, Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by DARRIN A. AUITO. DARYL JOSEFFER, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Appellee Google Inc., also represented by PAUL ALESSIO MEZZINA; ADAM CONRAD, Charlotte, NC. Appellee AOL Advertising, Inc., also represented

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,543 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."

  12. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 310 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting addition of "new matter"

  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