§

Ex Parte SCHWARTZ et al

14482950 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)
Ex Parte SCHWARTZ et al

10 Cited authorities

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

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 798 times   153 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

  2. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 722 times   119 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

  3. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Cellzdirect, Inc.

    827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 160 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept "when they amount to nothing more than observing or identifying the ineligible concept itself

  4. Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharms. Int'l Ltd.

    887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 79 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he contents of the label itself may permit the inference of specific intent to encourage, recommend, or promote infringement"

  5. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  6. Application of Bush

    296 F.2d 491 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6713. November 17, 1961. Marcus Lothrop, San Francisco, Cal., Harry W.F. Glemser and Bacon Thomas, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (R.E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Com'r of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,120 times   473 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  8. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,477 times   2268 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."

  9. 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

  10. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 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)