§

Facebook, Inc.

2020004322 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)
Facebook, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,538 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Bilski v. Kappos

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

  3. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)

    792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 322 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding "tailoring information based on [provided] data" is an abstract idea

  4. In re Morsa

    No. 2019-1757 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020)   Cited 9 times

    2019-1757 04-10-2020 IN RE: STEVE MORSA, Appellant STEVE MORSA, Thousand Oaks, CA, pro se. COKE MORGAN STEWART, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. PER CURIAM. NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 13/694,192. STEVE MORSA, Thousand

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,105 times   470 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."

  6. 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."

  7. 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)