§

Ex Parte Guler et al

10279307 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2010)
Ex Parte Guler et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. Diamond v. Diehr

    450 U.S. 175 (1981)   Cited 542 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

  2. In re Bilski

    545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 270 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-preemption under the second step of what was then called the "Freeman –Walter –Abele test" requires that the claim be "tied to a particular machine or bring about a particular transformation of a particular article"

  3. Verdegaal Bros., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif

    814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding reliance on non-claimed distinction between prior art method and claimed method "inappropriate" and insufficient to save the claim from inherent anticipation

  4. In re Nuijten

    500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 62 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Declining to import a tangible medium element into the claims directed to only encoded signals, which were unpatentable under § 101

  5. Nissim Corp. v. Time Warner, Inc.

    555 U.S. 1218 (2009)   Cited 5 times

    No. 08–954. 2009-03-2 NISSIM CORP., petitioner, v. TIME WARNER, INC., et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

  6. ATT CORP. v. EXCEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC

    172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 25 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding patentable "a process that uses the Boolean principle in order to determine the value of the PIC indicator" and that "require[d] the use of switches and computers"

  7. In re Grams

    888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 33 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a pre-solution step of gathering data incapable of imparting patent-eligibility under § 101

  8. Corning Et. al. v. Burden

    56 U.S. 252 (1853)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Corning et al. v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 267, et seq., 14 L. Ed. 683, the court refers to the fundamental difference between process and machine patents, calling attention to the fact that a process may be patentable irrespective of any particular form of machinery or mechanical device for practicing it.

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,022 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,529 times   2290 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."

  11. 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"

  12. 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