howard, dealertrack, cybersource

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Smith et al 10844690 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 MILLER & MARTIN EXAMINER AL-AWADI, DANAH J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Quigley 11098612 - (D) ZECHER 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHOU, ALBERT T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Aizenberg et al 11172319 - (D) LEE 103 HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT  EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B

3727 Ex Parte Yonezawa et al 10565503 - (D) BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

3734 Ex Parte Matsuno et al 10072721 - (D) GREEN 103 Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser EXAMINER MENDOZA, MICHAEL G

Relying on Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), the Examiner concludes:

It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the coupling member immovable in an axial direction of the actuating wire and a direction deviating from the axial direction by making the coupling member and actuating wire once piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involved only routine skill in the art. ...

The Examiner’s position is that Howard v. Detroit Stove Works holds that forming a one piece article from two pieces is a matter of routine skill. The Examiner, however, appears to draw from this case turning on specific facts, a general obviousness rule: namely, that forming several pieces integrally as a single-piece is not considered to be patentable subject matter. No such per se rule exists.

3739 Ex Parte Hanlon et al 11676340 - (D) ADAMS 103 Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER DELLA, JAYMI E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Kouchi et al 10525749 - (D) SCHEINER 103 103 Sheridan Ross, PC EXAMINER HARWARD, SOREN T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Eiermann et al 11043715 - (D) PRAISS 112(2) 112(1)/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Cheah et al 10955514 - (D) HAHN 102/103 102/103 Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER ZUBAJLO, JENNIFER L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 10908350 - (D) WOOD 102 102/103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, REGINALD

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fuchs et al 10593791 - (D) GARRIS 103 DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER KRYLOVA, IRINA

1774 Ex Parte Miura et al 11199366 - (D) SMITH 102/103 SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, NATASHA E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Fredrickson et al 11238550 - (D) THOMAS 101/102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

As for claims 7-12, a computer-implemented method is recited. However, simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where the claims recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed. Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Simply adding [computerized sending and receiving steps] to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.” Id. at 1340.

As to the “computer-implemented method,” we further note that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such datagathering steps cannot alone confer patentability. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome. Here, we find that the computer-implemented system is software (a software system), and is therefore non-statutory subject matter.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Puettner et al 10589058 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Kleen et al 11473412 - (D) GRIMES 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI
 
REHEARING
 
GRANTED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Dierkes et al 11043379 - (R) OBERMANN NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, P.A. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R