§

Ex Parte Morinville

12014887 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2019)
Ex Parte Morinville

16 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,442 times   521 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 831 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  3. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 505 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  4. Parker v. Flook

    437 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 371 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable

  5. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLC

    838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 296 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content is an abstract idea" because it comprises "information distribution that is untethered to any specific or concrete [implementation]"

  6. 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"

  7. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.

    839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 179 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims "directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected" were "directed to a combination of . . . abstract-idea categories" despite the claims' recitation of a computer

  8. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.

    850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 109 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the features constituting the inventive concept in step two of Mayo/Alice "must be more than 'well-understood, routine, conventional activity'" (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298)

  9. Cochrane v. Deener

    94 U.S. 780 (1876)   Cited 143 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Cochrane the invention was a method for bolting flour, described as a series of mechanical steps in the processing of flour meal.

  10. 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.

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,160 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,024 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,531 times   2295 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."

  14. Section 101 - Executive departments

    5 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 135 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Listing the Department of Commerce as an Executive department

  15. 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

  16. 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)