Monday July 26, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Rubin et al 10/685,737 WALSH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Aliyev et al 11/217,219 KRATZ 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

Ex Parte Livingston et al 10/928,834 KIMLIN 103(a) GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

Ex Parte Levine et al 10/631,937 HASTINGS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER LONEY, DONALD J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kimura 10/319,712 THOMAS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Miller 11/042,534 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) CRAIG W. RODDY HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Caccavale et al 10/441,866 LUCAS 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

“[The Supreme] Court’s precedents establish that the machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101. The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.’” See Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192, at *8 (June 28, 2010) (majority slip op. at Part–II–B1).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stated the machine-or-transformation test for process claims. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). 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. 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978).

The Supreme Court, in Bilski v. Kappos, 2010 WL 2555192, at *10 (2010) (majority slip op. at Part II–C–2), held that there are other tools for establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Those tools involve an inquiry into whether a process is merely an abstract idea. “In searching for a limiting principle, this Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas provide useful tools.” (Id.). The Court outlined one such precedent:

In [Gottschalk v.] Benson, 409 U.S. [63], 70 [(CCPA 1972)], the Court considered whether a patent application for an algorithm to convert binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary code was a “process” under §101. Id. at 64–67. The Court first explained that “‘[a] principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.’” Id. at 67 (quoting Le Roy, [55 U.S.156, 175 (1852)]). The Court then held the application at issue was not a “process,” but an unpatentable abstract idea. “It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting . . . numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case.” 409 U. S. [63], at 71. A contrary holding “would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”

Id. at 72. (Id. at *11 (Part III)).

...

We thus find that Appellants’ claim 8 is merely an abstract idea in accordance with Benson, a precedential case relied upon in Bilski v. Kappos as a “useful … investigative tool” for determining subject-matter eligibility.

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1852) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rahavan et al 10/771,545 NAPPI 101/102(e)/103(a) DON W. BULSON, ESQ. RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR EXAMINER ROSARIO, DENNIS

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Preaudat et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bates et al
Ex Parte Boire et al
Ex Parte Fenton et al
Ex Parte Lucidarme et al
Ex Parte Mitchell
Ex Parte Moore et al
Ex Parte Pang et al