14 Cited authorities
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
573 U.S. 208 (2014) Cited 1,420 times 520 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
566 U.S. 66 (2012) Cited 807 times 153 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility
Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 822 times 160 Legal AnalysesHolding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 729 times 119 Legal AnalysesHolding that claims to self-referential tables that allowed for more efficient launching and adaptation of databases were not directed to an abstract idea
Diamond v. Diehr
450 U.S. 175 (1981) Cited 539 times 130 Legal AnalysesHolding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter
Gottschalk v. Benson
409 U.S. 63 (1972) Cited 502 times 59 Legal AnalysesHolding claim involving mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not preempt a mathematical formula
Parker v. Flook
437 U.S. 584 (1978) Cited 370 times 63 Legal AnalysesHolding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable
Cochrane v. Deener
94 U.S. 780 (1876) Cited 143 times 5 Legal AnalysesIn Cochrane the invention was a method for bolting flour, described as a series of mechanical steps in the processing of flour meal.
Application of Warner
379 F.2d 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1967) Cited 22 times 1 Legal AnalysesPatent Appeal No. 7822. June 29, 1967. Richard E. Warner, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,133 times 479 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,499 times 2273 Legal AnalysesDefining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 186 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
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
Section 1.321 - Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers
37 C.F.R. § 1.321 Cited 75 times 34 Legal AnalysesIncorporating the language of § 253