SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

ultramercial, researchcorp., farrenkopf, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte GOLDENBERG et al 11/745,692 GRIMES 103(a) IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. EXAMINER KINSEY WHITE. NICOLE ERIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte Thoma 10/647,912 HOELTER 102(b) O'Shea Getz P.C. EXAMINER BOES, TERENCE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brissette 11/090,861 SAINDON 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER EKIERT, TERESA M

3748 Ex Parte Goulette et al 11/453,352 SAINDON 102(b) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

3761 Ex Parte Pfeifer et al 10/231,151 BONILLA 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Sparr et al 10/122,762 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) MOSER TABOADA EXAMINER MATTIS, JASON E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Svendsen 11/403,597 KIM 101/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA CT EXAMINER UBER, NATHAN C

However, the Federal Circuit has held that Section 101 is “merely a threshold check” and “no more than a ‘coarse eligibility filter’” that “are certainly not substitutes for the substantive patentability requirements set forth in § 102, § 103, and § 112.” See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11/485,413 KIM 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID

3783 Ex Parte Moskun 11/434,429 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COLEMAN, KEITH A

While Springer criticizes the use of a wireless radio connection for remote monitoring as complex and costly (id.), the cost of a particular modification in and of itself is not typically presumed sufficient to discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting the modification. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Farrenkopf, In re, 713 F.2d 714, 219 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11/260,678 NAGUMO 103(a) Rahman LLC EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Edelson 11/101,436 FETTING 112(2)/101/103(a) PATTON BOGGS LLP EXAMINER SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

As to the “computer-implemented method,”

even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). Simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where

the claims here recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. The fact that certain algorithms are disclosed in the specification does not change the outcome. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed.


Dealertrack v Huber --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 164439 (Fed Cir 2012). The phrase “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Godley 09/778,543 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/997,183 ASTORINO 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D

3761 Ex Parte Schneider 10/995,863 PRATS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

No comments :