§

Ex Parte Hanif et al

12777144 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018)
Ex Parte Hanif et al

20 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,418 times   520 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 821 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  3. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 728 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

  4. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

    881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 536 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims may be treated as "representative" in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes no "meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim"

  5. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 526 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims on maintaining website look-and-feel patent-eligible because claims were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"

  6. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 379 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"

  7. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 369 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  8. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 380 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

  9. Cybersource Corp.. v. Retail Decisions Inc.

    654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 280 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"

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

    841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 223 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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."

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,496 times   2273 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."

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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)