custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Raghu 13540334 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102 VMWARE, INC. RUBIN, BLAKE J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Coffield et al 13393969 - (D) CHUNG Concurring POTHIER 112(2)/102 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. AUNG, SAN M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Richard 12195806 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/103 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC HELM, CARALYNNE E
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Shehan et al 13436584 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(2)/103 101/103 41.50 101 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP UBER, NATHAN C
Appellants do not identify any claimed features that would constitute “significantly more” than the abstract idea, in accord with Alice. Furthermore, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). Although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id.
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 , 2106
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Gottlieb 13347806 - (D) PESLAK 112(2)/102/103 112(1) DOUGLAS J. VISNIUS TRAVERS, MATTHEW P
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Bandholtz et al 14148483 - (D) NEW 102 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP POLIAKOVA-GEORGAN, EKATERINA
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Arriola et al 13442560 - (D) BENNETT 103 Trellis IP Law Group/ Sony Corp. CHEN, CAI Y
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Yamada et al 12691116 - (D) BEST 103 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP CULLER, JILL E
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Melcher et al 13074520 - (D) BENNETT 103 112(2)/101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY GARG, YOGESH C
3686 Ex Parte Song et al 12833428 - (D) KUMAR 101 GE Healthcare, IP Department LUBIN, VALERIE
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Boschetti Sacco 12298625 - (D) BARRETT 112(2) 101/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY
3742 Ex Parte Vinegar et al 13567799 - (D) DOUGAL 102/103/double patenting SHELL OIL COMPANY PAIK, SANG YEOP
3752 Ex Parte Biagi et al 11876799 - (D) GUIJT 102 112(2) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation LEE, CHEE-CHONG
3772 Ex Parte Munzel 12714804 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2)/103 Blue Filament Law HICKS, VICTORIA J
3782 Ex Parte Buchhalter 13989862 - (D) CALVE 103 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC BATTISTI, DEREK J
3788 Ex Parte Smalley 13268264 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP POON, ROBERT
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 13758492 - (D) MACDONALD 101 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP FLYNN, KEVIN H
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Li & Cai
Showing posts with label ariosa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ariosa. Show all posts
Monday, November 13, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
ariosa
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Busche et al 12973766 - (D) ADAMS 101/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Kennedy et al 12645025 - (D) THOMAS 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. VU, TOAN H
2165 Ex Parte KAWAMOTO et al 12629662 - (D) ENGLE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. CHBOUKI, TAREK
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Jubilo et al 13679131 - (D) McNEILL 102/103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP YU, ROYIT
2697 Ex Parte Colley 12767344 - (D) HUME 102 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Reitz et al 12896836 - (D) O’HANLON 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP STAUBACH, LINDSEY CLAIRE
3744 Ex Parte Chantant 12668582 - (D) CALVE 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY MENGESHA, WEBESHET
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Krzyzanowski et al 12639165 - (D) BAIN 103 103 OpenPeak Inc. CHANG, KAI J
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte McCray et al 12433659 - (D) FREDMAN 103 VIKSNINS HARRIS & PADYS PLLP BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1634 Ex Parte Chamberlain et al 12293763 - (D) PRATS 101 KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP SITTON, JEHANNE SOUAYA
Indeed, our reviewing court has expressly rejected similar contentions regarding preemption, stating that a patentee’s “attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses . . . outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court explained that, “[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework . . . preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2125 Ex Parte Rahnama 14231378 - (D) SHIANG 103 101 FISH & TSANG LLP HUANG, MIRANDA M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Fujita et al 12461675 - (D) HAGY 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NGO, TONY N
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Hui 13283366 - (R) HOFFMANN 102/103 VEDDER PRICE P.C. NEWHOUSE, NATHAN JEFFREY
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Busche et al 12973766 - (D) ADAMS 101/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Kennedy et al 12645025 - (D) THOMAS 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. VU, TOAN H
2165 Ex Parte KAWAMOTO et al 12629662 - (D) ENGLE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. CHBOUKI, TAREK
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Jubilo et al 13679131 - (D) McNEILL 102/103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP YU, ROYIT
2697 Ex Parte Colley 12767344 - (D) HUME 102 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Reitz et al 12896836 - (D) O’HANLON 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP STAUBACH, LINDSEY CLAIRE
3744 Ex Parte Chantant 12668582 - (D) CALVE 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY MENGESHA, WEBESHET
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Krzyzanowski et al 12639165 - (D) BAIN 103 103 OpenPeak Inc. CHANG, KAI J
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte McCray et al 12433659 - (D) FREDMAN 103 VIKSNINS HARRIS & PADYS PLLP BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1634 Ex Parte Chamberlain et al 12293763 - (D) PRATS 101 KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP SITTON, JEHANNE SOUAYA
Indeed, our reviewing court has expressly rejected similar contentions regarding preemption, stating that a patentee’s “attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses . . . outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court explained that, “[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework . . . preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2125 Ex Parte Rahnama 14231378 - (D) SHIANG 103 101 FISH & TSANG LLP HUANG, MIRANDA M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Fujita et al 12461675 - (D) HAGY 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NGO, TONY N
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Hui 13283366 - (R) HOFFMANN 102/103 VEDDER PRICE P.C. NEWHOUSE, NATHAN JEFFREY
Labels:
ariosa
Friday, December 16, 2016
ariosa
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte CHOPRA et al 12762141 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Garg Law Firm, PLLC TODD, GREGORY G
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Roessler 13955766 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte BACANI et al 13039105 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON OTTON, ALICIA L
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Saito et al 12474134 - (D) BEST 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Tripp et al 14067032 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC RASHID, HARUNUR
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte Ebisawa et al 13028329 - (D) DIXON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. NGUYEN, VU
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11823371 - (D) MEYERS 101/103 IRELL & MANELLA LLP MISIASZEK, AMBER ALTSCHUL
We also note that Appellants’ preemption argument does not alter our §101 analysis. Preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot where a patent’s claims are deemed to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the two-part framework described in Mayo and Alice. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “While preemption may signal patent ineligible matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id.
3654 Ex Parte Kanzow et al 12659281 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. LIU, HENRY Y
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Lee 13074948 - (D) SCHOPFER 103/double patenting Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) HOUSTON, ELIZABETH
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Beeson et al 13280171 - (D) MORGAN 112(1)/103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] NGUYEN, TIEN M
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Paidimarri et al 13406849 - (R) PAK 102 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED GANNON, LEVI
REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte CHOPRA et al 12762141 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Garg Law Firm, PLLC TODD, GREGORY G
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Roessler 13955766 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte BACANI et al 13039105 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON OTTON, ALICIA L
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Saito et al 12474134 - (D) BEST 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Tripp et al 14067032 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC RASHID, HARUNUR
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte Ebisawa et al 13028329 - (D) DIXON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. NGUYEN, VU
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11823371 - (D) MEYERS 101/103 IRELL & MANELLA LLP MISIASZEK, AMBER ALTSCHUL
We also note that Appellants’ preemption argument does not alter our §101 analysis. Preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot where a patent’s claims are deemed to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the two-part framework described in Mayo and Alice. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “While preemption may signal patent ineligible matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id.
3654 Ex Parte Kanzow et al 12659281 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. LIU, HENRY Y
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Lee 13074948 - (D) SCHOPFER 103/double patenting Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) HOUSTON, ELIZABETH
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Beeson et al 13280171 - (D) MORGAN 112(1)/103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] NGUYEN, TIEN M
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Paidimarri et al 13406849 - (R) PAK 102 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED GANNON, LEVI
Labels:
ariosa
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)