§

Ex Parte Cochran et al

13178857 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)
Ex Parte Cochran et al

22 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. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 471 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims eligible at step two because the claims recited a "technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering ... content" that "improve the performance of the computer system itself"

  3. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 269 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  4. Cybersource Corp.. v. Retail Decisions Inc.

    654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 278 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim whose "steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" is directed to an "unpatentable mental process"

  5. Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.

    841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 220 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim eligible at step two because it "entails an unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem," and the solution "requires that arguably generic components ... operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality"

  6. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 130 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify cff-DNA in a sample before detecting it

  7. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.

    842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 111 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding claimed menu interface abstract because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems"

  8. In re Comiskey

    554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 82 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lack of statutory subject matter, a legal question, is a permissible alternative ground for affirmance of the Board

  9. Morsa v. Facebook, Inc.

    77 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (C.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that "targeting customers based on demographic criteria; requiring the bid amount to be ‘modifiable’; making the advertisements ‘searchable’; requiring the user to be the source of the demographic information; altering the display of the advertisement in various ways; ... using ‘negative’ criteria to determine not to present an advertisement to a given user ... altering a given advertisement's display based on its ‘performance and/or ... popularity’; requiring the advertisements to be delivered to users in a specific geographic location or on a specific wireless device; dictating that the advertisements be delivered via video or audio; and collecting user data in various ways" were not inventive concepts sufficient to confer patent eligibility

  10. Shortridge v. Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC

    Case No. 14-cv-04850-JCS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015)   Cited 17 times

    Case No. 14-cv-04850-JCS 04-14-2015 DOUGLAS MAURICE SHORTRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION PAYROLL SERVICE, LLC, et al., Defendants. JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Re: Dkt. No. 40 I. INTRODUCTION This case arises from pro se Plaintiff Douglas Shortridge's claim that Defendants Foundation Construction Payroll Service (dba Payroll4Construction.com), Foundation Software, Inc., and Associated Builders and Contractors,

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,329 times   1038 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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."

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. 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)