§

Daniel F. Gruhl et al.

15010366 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2020)
Daniel F. Gruhl et al.

21 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,400 times   515 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

  2. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 794 times   151 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

  3. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 814 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  4. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 721 times   118 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea

  5. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

    881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 529 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"

  6. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 533 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions" are directed to an abstract idea

  7. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 522 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims on maintaining website look-and-feel patent-eligible because claims were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"

  8. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 500 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  9. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 375 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"

  10. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 369 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  11. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,468 times   2251 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 184 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  13. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   28 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  16. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and