§

Ex Parte Seifert et al

14171410 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)
Ex Parte Seifert et al

19 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,431 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 815 times   153 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

  3. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 827 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  4. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

    569 U.S. 576 (2013)   Cited 461 times   148 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

  5. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 736 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

  6. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

    830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 549 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions" are directed to an abstract idea

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

    773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 530 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"

  8. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

    772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 500 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea

  9. Gottschalk v. Benson

    409 U.S. 63 (1972)   Cited 504 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula

  10. Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.

    728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 236 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event" is an abstract idea

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,143 times   481 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 3,511 times   2284 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