rapid litigation, mayo

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Ashmore et al 13490588 - (D) OWENS 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company CHANG, JOSEPHINE L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte HRABAK 14100051 - (D) ENGLE 103 LKGLOBAL (GM) JUSTUS, RALPH H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Muller et al 11851243 - (D) FETTING 103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (SV) JASMIN, LYNDA C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Janssen et al 13505239 - (D) LAVIER 102/103 HOLLAND & HART WILLSE, DAVID H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2845 Ex Parte SHEN et al 14949423 - (D) RANGE 102 102/103 Patent Capital Group - Analog NGUYEN, LINH V

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Horne et al 13880515 - (D) SMITH 103 ALLERGAN, INC. LOVE, TREVOR M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Wang et al 13669537 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 PPG Industries, Inc. SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1786 Ex Parte Chang et al 13816906 - (D) OWENS 103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS TATESURE, VINCENT

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Felke et al 14060657 - (D) WINSOR 101 HONEYWELL/FOGG PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE

2163 Ex Parte Zheng et al 13652386 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Peninsula Patent Group DEWAN, KAMAL K

2168 Ex Parte Peretz et al 13335860 - (D) FRAHM 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP MOBIN, HASANUL

2191 Ex Parte Liu et al 14520916 - (D) KUMAR 103 Trellis IP Law Group/Oracle BROPHY, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Minezawa et al 13378974 - (D) FRAHM 103 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP HUNG, YUBIN

2668 Ex Parte McDunn et al 14961224 - (D) KUMAR 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group YANG, QIAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Liu et al 13749557 - (D) CHUNG 102 101 Facebook/Fenwick ELCHANTI, TAREK

3623 Ex Parte Faulkenberg et al 13682286 - (D) JEFFERY 101 Target Brands Inc. ROSS, SCOTT M

Moreover, the mere fact that the Examiner has not presented specific claim limitations that resulted in withdrawing an obviousness rejection does not overcome a § 101 rejection. "[P]atent-eligibility does not tum on ease of execution or obviousness of application. Those are questions that are examined under separate provisions of the Patent Act." Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89--90)

3625 Ex Parte Drew et al 13634772 - (D) FETTING 101 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DXC) KAUFMANN, MATTHEW J

3626 Ex Parte Brackett 11684228 - (D) FETTING 101/103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. REYES, REGINALD R

3685 Ex Parte Moskowitz 13826858 - (D) FETTING 112(1) 101/103 NEIFELD IP LAW, PC OBEID, MAMON A

3686 Ex Parte Morrissey et al 13426935 - (D) BUI 101/103 M&B IP Analysts, LLC GORT, ELAINE L

3692 Ex Parte Joplin 14169819 - (D) FETTING 103 101/103 Ballard Spahr LLP GAW, MARK H

3693 Ex Parte Nonaka 12596564 - (D) AMUNDSON 101/103 LEX IP MEISTER, PLLC CHAKRAVART!, ARUNAVA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Hsiao et al 13614189 - (D) KNIGHT 101 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3715 Ex Parte Hsiao et al 13153673 - (D) KNIGHT 101 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3744 Ex Parte Rosenlund et al 13368814 - (D) HOELTER 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. TRPISOVSKY, JOSEPH F

3782 Ex Parte Cox et al 14095067 - (D) HOSKINS 103 OTDP ZIP Group PLLC - IBM Storage MCNURLEN, SCOTT THOMAS

alice, mayo, rapid litigation

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Mor et al 13765706 - (D) HAGY 103 41.50 103 D. KLIGLER I.P. SERVICES LTD. MONK, MARK T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte Ganesan et al 13445479 - (D) CUTITTA 103 112(1) HP Inc. SHAH, BHARATKUMAR S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Breitenbach et al 12297734 - (D) RANGE 102/103 Abel Law Group, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

1674 Ex Parte Hayes et al 13748964 - (D) SCHNEIDER 101 Larson & Anderson, LLC CHONG, KIMBERLY

35 U.S.C. § 101 states that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”   The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”  Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). 

The Federal Circuit has summarized the Supreme Court’s two-part test for distinguishing between claims to patent-ineligible exceptions, and claims to patent-eligible applications of those exceptions, as follows: 

Step one asks whether the claim is “directed to one of [the] patent-ineligible concepts.” [Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354].  If the answer is no, the inquiry is over: the claim falls within the ambit of § 101.  If the answer is yes, the inquiry moves to step two, which asks whether, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, “the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”  Id. (quoting Mayo [Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)]).   

Step two is described “as a search for an ‘inventive concept.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294).  At step two, more is required than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community,” which fails to transform the claim into “significantly more than a patent upon the” ineligible concept itself. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294. 

Rapid Litigation Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (paragraphing added). 

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 , 2106

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2103 , 2106

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Shellenberger 13770541 - (D) INGLESE 103 SEALED AIR CORPORATION SABERI, JASPER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Shibata 13800753 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Alpine CHOWDHURY, RAYEEZ R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Zhou et al 12914059 - (D) PINKERTON 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Nazarov et al 11475685 - (D) KUMAR 103 HolzerlPLaw, PC RENNER, CRAIG A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte De et al 11755288 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 101 Baker Botts LLP KANG, IRENE S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Racov et al 13379707 - (D) BROWNE 112(1) 103 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP I LEE, LAURA MICHELLE

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Jennings 13789803 - (D) DERRICK 103 BROOKS CUSHMAN P.C./FGTL LEONG, JONATHAN G

alice, mayo, amdocs

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte McBride et al 12377926 - (D) FLAX 101 Parker Highlander PLLC DEVI, SARVAMANGALA J N

We note, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’” and whether one takes a macroscopic or microscopic view of a claim may be determinative on the issue. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293); and see Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., — F.3d — ,2016 WL 6440387 *9 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016).

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 , 2106

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2103 , 2106

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte McAleese et al 12769997 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 103 41.50 103 Pillsbury Whithrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Kroger &Sunr) GATLING, STACIE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Schollmayer 10429283 - (D) HARLOW 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1636 Ex Parte BAKER et al 12950732 - (D) MAJORS 112(1)/101 Genomic Health, Inc. / McNeill Baur PLLC BROWN, MINDY G

1637 Ex Parte DAHL et al 13021141 - (D) SCHNEIDER 102 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/ Complete Genomics, Inc. THOMAS, DAVID C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Ludlow et al 12265666 - (D) HUME 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General BROWN, VERNAL U

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte SOUBRA 12966360 - (D) FETTING 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Trimble Navigation Limited ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex parte BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE,Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6616909 et al 09/492,246 90011112 - (R) GUEST 103 BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP TORRES VELAZQUEZ, NORCA LIZ original STRICKLAND, JONAS N

mayo, diamond1, irdeto

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Realff et al 12942906 - (D) McCOLLUM 101/102 Andrews Kurth LLP HUTSON, RICHARD G

Section 101 states that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor." However, the "Court has long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception. '[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas' are not patentable.' Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). In addition, "to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. at 1294. Furthermore, a "'new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made."' Id. at 1298 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981)).

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2103 , 2106

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) 2103 , 2106 , 2107.01 , 2111.05

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Cray et al 12377508 - (D) DELMENDO 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC WALTERS JR, ROBERTS

1724 Ex Parte Blunk 13014484 - (D) RANGE 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. THOMAS, BRENT C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Angelov 12794094 - (D) HOELTER 112(2)/102 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Tu et al 13308386 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (LICENSING) SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD

3686 Ex Parte Coffman et al 13185427 - (D) KIM 102 McDermott Will & Emery LLP PAULSON, SHEETAL R.

3686 Ex Parte Sakai 12676582 - (D) KIM 112(2)/102 Cheng Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

3696 Ex Parte HOLENSTEIN et al 13752967 - (D) MOHANTY 102/103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP NIQUETTE, ROBERT R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Kaplan et al 13271908 - (D) CAPP 102 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP HELLER, TAMMIE K

Thus, even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms by implication such that their meaning may be ascertained by reading the patent documents. Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte DLUNA et al 09969212 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation SMITH, CHENEA

2454 Ex Parte Cohen et al 13301586 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 DeLizio Law, PLLC Qualcomm Inc (DL) KHAN, AFTAB N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Santori et al 12480816 - (D) DEJMEK 102/103 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L LIAO, HSINCHUN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Scala et al 11465525 - (D) FREDMAN 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

1613 Ex Parte Gjorstrup 12287712 - (D) FREDMAN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP BASQUILL, SEAN M

1615 Ex Parte Ei-Habbal 12920345 - (D) FREDMAN 112(4)/103 112(2)/102 Bay State IP, LLC WORSHAM, JESSICA N

1616 Ex Parte Bleckmann et al 11585246 - (D) FLAX 112(2)/103/double patenting Abel Law Group, LLP FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1644 Ex Parte Zang 12630228 - (D) TOWNSEND 112(1) 103 Arnold & Porter LLP EWOLDT, GERALD R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Bonucci et al 13131393 - (D) ROSS 103 Steinfl & Bnmo LLP RUMMEL, IAN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2145 Ex Parte Campbell et al 12697076 - (D) McGRAW 102/103 Alleman Hall McCoy Russell & Tuttle LLP/SLA STITT, ERIK V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Cichy et al 13530873 - (D) HOWARD 103 Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors CHAKRABORTY,RAJARSHI

2649 Ex Parte Hart 11453055 - (D) HOWARD 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL DEAN, RAYMOND S

2684 Ex Parte Brandl 13360866 - (D) HUME 112(2) 112(2)/103 41.50 112(2) NXP B.V. PHAM, QUANG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Scotch et al 13170276 - (D) KENNEDY 103 OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc. DIALLO, MAMADOU L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Hintz 12334060 - (D) KIM 103/double patenting KENNETH J. HINTZ GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Stein 12825724 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 Orthosensor, Inc, CERIONI, DANIEL LEE

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2897 Ex Parte Kapusta et al 13327333 - (D) OWENS 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (LICENSING) HALL, VICTORIA KATHLEEN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Kreizinger 14738851 - (D) WIEKER 112(2)/102/103 Kenneth R Kreizinger KATCHEVES, BASILS

alice, mayo

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kandanala et al 13196949 - (D) CHEN 102/103 41.50 103 VERIZON BAIG, SAHAR A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Predale et al 12754682 - (D) FETTING 101/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, [] determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [] If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us? [] To answer that question, [] consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept'"-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."

Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)).

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 , 2106

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2103 , 2106

3731 Ex Parte Lavigne et al 12791534 - (D) FLAX 103 Covidien LP SZPIRA, TIJLIE ANN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Olbert et al 12675137 - (D) MAJORS 103 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 12345131 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 101 CRGO LAW HA YIM, SAMUELE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte PIKKUJAMSA et al 11954845 - (D) CRAIG 103 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Petersen et al 13277290 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Fernandez et al 12371885 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/BASF KARST, DAVID THOMAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2195 Ex Parte Ly et al 11186294 - (D) PYONIN 112(2)/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (CA, Inc.) LEE, JAMES J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte KUROUME et al 13181778 - (D) HAGY 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P,C BUTTRAM, ALAN T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte KIM et al 12978755 - (D) PYONIN 102/103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP PATEL, MUKUNDBHAI G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte DiCroce et al 13106485 - (D) O'HANLON 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC NGUYEN, CUONG H

3686 Ex Parte Ghouri 11957387 - (D) FETTING 103 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP PATEL, NEHA

3689 Ex Parte Shah et al 12913921 - (D) FETTING 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise SANTOS-DIAZ, MARIA C

3695 Ex Parte Jones et al 10707491 - (D) FETTING 101/103 Docket Clerk-GOLD DASS, BARISH T

alice, mayo, ovshinsky

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2144 Ex Parte Dubinsky et al 11482133 - (D) HAAPALA 102/103 41.50 101 BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP DEBROW, JAMES J

We find these claims are ineligible for patent protection because they are directed to an abstract idea.

The decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) is controlling. We analyze the claims using a two part-analysis: 1) Determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea; and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct at 2350. ...

“[S]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S.Ct 1289, 1300 (2012); see also Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct at 2359–60 (purely conventional functions performed by the computer are not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).

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

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Bringuier et al 12843402 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 CORNING INCORPORATED EL SHAMMAA, MARY A

2886 Ex Parte CHILDERS et al 12695613 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED PAJOOHI GOMEZ, TARA S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Steger et al 12571895 - (D) HOSKINS 103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. KRAMER, DEVON C

3747 Ex Parte Tao et al 12513019 - (D) WOODS 103 RATNERPRESTIA KIM, JAMES JAY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Gelman et al 10621112 - (D) DILLON 103 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. STMICROELECTRONICS KEEHN, RICHARD G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Viswanathan et al 11486990 - (D) MOORE 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C ROY, BAISAKHI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Amano et al 11870516 - (D) GRIMES 103 Covidien LP/Shumaker & Sieffert P.A. ZISKA, SUZANNE E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Weispfenning et al 11936614 - (D) HASTINGS 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG

1782 Ex Parte Enzinger et al 13137070 - (D) GARRIS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Batra 11648113 - (D) ZADO 103 ADDMG - ST (first filed US/Asia) CYGIEL, GARY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Barber-Mingo et al 12507939 - (D) SMITH 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. LAI, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Gattani et al 11523136 - (D) KAISER 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN PERROMAT, CARLOS

2625 Ex Parte Kwisthout 12446276 - (D) BEAMER 102/103 SHIMOKAJI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE

2681 Ex Parte Luterotti 12553542 - (D) PYONIN 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH LU, SHIRLEY

2682 Ex Parte Schilling et al 11422831 - (D) TROCK 103 Perkins Coie LLP GLENN PATENT GROUP LABBEES, EDNY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Baldwin et al 12543458 - (D) THOMAS 103 UNR/DRI Technology Transfer Office FAYYAZ, NASHMIYA SAQIB

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Fontaine et al 12451516 - (D) BRANCH 103 The Carter Law Firm NGUYEN, STEVEN H D

3671 Ex Parte Farmer 12504881 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. MITCHELL, JOEL F

3679 Ex Parte Leahy et al 11538990 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

An allegation of improper bias by an examiner must be made in separate correspondence and is a matter for petition, not appeal.  See, e.g., In re Ovshinsky, 24 USPQ2d 1241 (Comm'r Pat. 1992); see also 37 C.F.R. 1.3 (2012) ("Complaints against examiners ... must be made in correspondence separate from other papers.").

3689 Ex Parte Camhi et al 12323890 - (D) BAYAT 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Waggle et al 12035475 - (D) BAHR 103 KENNAMETAL INC. SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3727 Ex Parte Dewing 12455163 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 D. MORGAN TENCH BERRY, STEPHANIE R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY COMPANY, LTD. Appellant Ex Parte 6887114 et al 10/896,121 90012447 - (D) CHEN 103 JONES DAY THIRD PARTY REQUESTER : Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP PATEL, HETUL B original TSUKERMAN, LARISA Z

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)).

alice, mayo, ultramercial

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1779 Ex Parte Werner et al 12158558 - (D) WARREN 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Roche) JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Tinti 12387853 - (D) KERINS 103 James E. Curry GRAHAM, MARK S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Olbrich et al 12306853 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1771 Ex Parte Iyer et al 12784696 - (D) PAK 103 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1792 Ex Parte Bekele 12828461 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SEALED AIR CORPORATION THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2898 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 12076994 - (D) WARREN 103 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. SHOOK, DANIEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Levin 10787486 - (D) BROWNE 101 GRACE J FISHEL COLLINS, DOLORES R

The Supreme Court has set forth “a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012). According to the Supreme Court’s framework, we must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Id. If so, we must secondly “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. The Supreme Court characterizes the second step of the analysis as “a search for an
‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”’ Id. ...

Like the claim at issue in Ultramercial, “[t]his ordered combination of steps recites an abstraction” as it has no particular concrete or tangible form. Ultramercial, Inc. and Ultramercial LLC v. Hulu , LLC and Wildtangent, Inc., 2014 WL 5904902, 4 (Fed. Cir. 2014). ...

“The second step in the [Alice] analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method.” Ultramercial at 5 (citing Mayo at 1297). Our reviewing court instructs us that “[w]e must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an ‘inventive concept’ to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Alice at 2357 (quoting Mayo at 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter “requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. (quoting Mayo at 1294). Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo at 1298.

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 DEEP SKY SOFTWARE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 6738770 et al 09/823,406 95000625 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP Third Party Requester: THOMPSON & KNIGHT, L.L.P. WOOD, WILLIAM H original AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 APPLE INC. Requester v. S3 GRAPHICS CO. LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6775417 et al 10/052,613 95000585 - (D) DILLON 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg TRAN, HENRY N original DO, ANH HONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 GOOGLE INC. Requester v. INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6199014 et al 08/997,677 95002031 - (D) CURCURI 103 Ascenda Law Group, PC Third Party Requester: Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original ISSING, GREGORY C