REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Seaford et al MERCADER 102(b) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.

Ex Parte Cripe NAGUMO 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

Our reviewing court has found "a proposed modification inappropriate for an obviousness inquiry when the modification rendered the prior art reference inoperable for its intended purpose." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265-66 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Coleman et al PATE III 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale, and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.").

Ex Parte Schell et al PATE III 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.

Ex Parte Sato et al ADAMS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

BILSKI - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Holtz et al HUGHES 103(a)/101 Sun Microsystems c/o Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

The “machine-or-transformation test” governs patent-eligible subject matter for process claims under § 101. As explained in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc):

The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched inquiry; an applicant
may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim
is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an
article. See [Gottschalk v.] Benson, 409 U.S. [63,] 70, 93 S. Ct. 253 [(1972)].
Certain considerations are applicable to analysis under either branch. First, as
illustrated by Benson and discussed below, the use of a specific machine or
transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope
to impart patent-eligibility. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 93 S. Ct. 253.
Second, the involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process
must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity. See [Parker v.] Flook,
437 U.S. [584,] 590, 98 S. Ct. 2522 [(1978)].

Bilski, 545 F.3d at 961-62.

In its Bilski opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit further explains “insignificant extra-solution activity:”

Although the [Supreme] Court spoke of “postsolution” activity, we have
recognized that the Court’s reasoning is equally applicable to any insignificant
extra-solution activity regardless of where and when it appears in the claimed
process. See In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding a simple
recordation step in the middle of the claimed process incapable of imparting
patent-eligibility under § 101); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (holding a pre-solution step of gathering data incapable of imparting
patent-eligibility under § 101).

Id. at 957 n.14.

In fact, one can perform each of these steps in one’s mind. Such mental steps are patentably excluded under § 101. See Benson, 409 U.S at 67; see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[M]ental processes – or processes of human thinking – standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”) Thus, we do not find claim 1 recites any machine, let alone a particular machine, under this prong of the machine-ortransformation test.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Drake et al SIU 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / SUN / STK

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Van Geest et al HAIRSTON 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS

Ex Parte Inuiya MARTIN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Heinfried et al SCHEINER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) WOODLING, KROST AND RUST

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Dresig et al PATE 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER, & STENBY

Ex Parte Gass PATE III obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) SD3, LLC