OIP

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Eikaas et al 13119345 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 OSHA LIANG/MI AHUJA, ANURADHA

3694 Ex Parte Annunziata et al 12893690 - (D) FETTING 101/103 41.50 101 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) CRANFORD, MICHAEL D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Sing et al 12841111 - (D) GRIMES 112(2)/103 Vista IP Law Group LLP GILBERT, SAMUEL G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Warren et al 11059763 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY VU, JAKE MINH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Johnson et al 13327843 - (D) FETTING 103 101 Johnson, Marcou & Isaacs, LLC CRANFORD, MICHAEL D

We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not shown preemption. Replay Br. 4. First, that the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be limited to the abstract idea in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract. See OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1360—1361 (2015). Second, preemption is one test, but not the only test for finding a claim directed to an abstract idea. Third, as the claims do no more than lay out conceptual advice on one way to substitute credit accounts, and recite doing so by a general purpose computer, by definition of preemption this precludes all methods of following that advice. The recitation of a computer does not alter this analysis.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte SAJIMA et al 13723937 - (D) HOWARD 103 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP STANCZAK, MATTHEW BRIAN