§

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

13705515 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2020)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

18 Cited authorities

  1. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,434 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. 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

  3. 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

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

    841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 224 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"

  5. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.

    859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 92 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the now-expired scheme for covered business method patents, § 324(e) did not bar review of post-institution estoppel determinations under § 325(e)

  6. Mantech Envt'l Corp. v. Hudson Envt'l Ser

    152 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 145 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the sequential nature of the claim steps is apparent from the plain meaning of the claim language and nothing in the written description suggests otherwise"

  7. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  8. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC

    921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 46 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding claims directed to trading display patent ineligible because they made the trader, not the computer, more efficient

  9. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.

    890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 38 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Denying en banc review

  10. Loral Fairchild Corporation v. Sony Corp.

    181 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 54 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim language itself indicated that the steps had to be performed in their written order because the second step required the alignment of a second structure with a first structure formed by the prior step

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,016 times   1014 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,515 times   2288 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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  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)

  17. 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