§

Haines, Robyn Aylor. et al.

12925221 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2019)
Haines, Robyn Aylor. et al.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.

    566 U.S. 66 (2012)   Cited 831 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

  2. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank

    776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 625 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to the "abstract idea of 1

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

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 385 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

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

    839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 182 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

  5. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 133 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible the claimed process for using PCR to amplify cff-DNA in a sample before detecting it

  6. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.

    464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 138 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding based on the record that "[t]he presence of certain secondary considerations of nonobviousness are insufficient as a matter of law to overcome our conclusion that the evidence only supports a legal conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious"

  7. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 153 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  8. Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharms. Int'l Ltd.

    887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 85 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he contents of the label itself may permit the inference of specific intent to encourage, recommend, or promote infringement"

  9. In re Fulton

    391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 85 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a particular combination" need not "be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation"

  10. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.

    774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 49 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing the appropriate comparison being between the primers and "the relevant portion of the naturally occurring sequence"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. 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."

  13. 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."

  14. 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)

  15. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by

  16. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and