classen, cybersource, research corp., santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Robert et al 10984252 - (D) SCHEINER 103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Karve et al 11931565 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte King et al 11810943 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI

Although it is acknowledged that patent eligibility under § 101 is a course filter and that disqualifying abstractness of a claim must be manifest, that does not compel a conclusion that there is never a valid basis to hold that a claim is simply too abstract to qualify as patent eligible. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Research Corp. Techs, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec et al., 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11479365 - (D) DILLON 102 102/103 Seagate Technology LLC Hall Estill Attorneys at Law DOAN, DUC T

Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.”).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Hung et al 09761893 - (D) ADAMS 103 Shih-Chieh Hung Dept. of Orthop. and Traumetology, Vet. General Hospital-Taipei DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Wu 11855243 - (D) METZ 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Rudolph et al 10936254 - (D) BENOIT 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Kuhl et al 11498758 - (D) DILLON 102/103 CROWELL & MORING LLP MORTELL, JOHN F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Friedl et al 11797836 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC BUI, BRYAN
 
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 FACEBOOK, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001715 7421470 10/721,905 ZECHER 102/103 Reed Smith LLP CHOI, WOO H original STRANGE, AARON N

2153 FACEBOOK, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001716 7433921 10/722,051 ZECHER 102/103 Reed Smith LLP CHOI, WOO H original STRANGE, AARON N

2181 NVIDIA CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001472 6,715,020 10/037,171 SIU 103 Paul M. Anderson, PLLC ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN