§

Ex Parte Dressler et al

11733605 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015)
Ex Parte Dressler et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,454 times   522 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. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 835 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  3. Application of Ruschig

    379 F.2d 990 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 75 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the written description requirement is a requirement separate from enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1

  4. Application of McLaughlin

    443 F.2d 1392 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 11 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8474. June 24, 1971. Norman Lettvin, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R.V. Lupo, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. McLaughlin has appealed from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 13, 14 and 15 in his application as unpatentable

  5. In re Ellis

    86 F.2d 412 (C.C.P.A. 1936)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3757. December 7, 1936. Appeal from Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 426,192. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Carleton Ellis for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office rejecting five claims in the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Sol Shappirio, of Washington, D.C., for appellant. R.F. Whitehead, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before

  6. In re Becker

    101 F.2d 557 (C.C.P.A. 1939)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 4050. February 6, 1939. Rehearing Denied March 6, 1939. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals, Serial No. 554,919. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Oskar Walter Becker for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Examiner rejecting claims of the application, Oskar Walter Becker appeals. Affirmed. E.F. Wenderoth, of Washington, D.C. (John E. Lind, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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 3,547 times   2302 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  11. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)