alice, mayo, mullin, herbert

custom search

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Ting et al 11294354 - (D) POTHIER Concurring Baumeister 101/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Nguyen 11985484 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 101/102 Martin Khang Nguyen CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).

In judging whether claim 12 falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then consider the elements of the claim — both individually and as an ordered combination — to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. This is a search for an “inventive concept” — an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Id.

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

3685 Ex Parte CHATTE 11866007 - (D) HUTCHINGS 112(2)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC HUANG, TSAN-YU J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Avery Dennison Corporation Requester v. Continental Datalabel, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Flynn et al 6,860,050 10/390,339 95001608 - (D) GUEST 112(1)/103 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: AVERY DENNISION CORPORTION NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why the label assembly with the matrix strip intact would not meet the requirements of the claim. In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335 (CCPA 1973) (finding that a reference that describes a composition or structure as being an intermediate can be regarded as prior art) (citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390 (CCPA 1972)).