SEARCH

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

Monday, May 14, 2012

research corp, cybersource

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 
2163 Ex Parte Satagopan et al 10/693,516 GIANNETTI 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2184 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/147,855 STRAUSS 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER TSENG, CHENG YUAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Demaria et al 10/109,643 DANG 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kelly 11/079,323 KRIVAK 112(2)/102(a)/103(a) MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, ANH D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Daniels et al 10/985,314 FRAHM 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAILU, TESHOME

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Ford et al 10/736,854 ZECHER 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2127 Ex Parte Sato et al 11/437,233 McNAMARA 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Amielh-Caprioglio et al 10/324,814 DANG 102(e) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER VO, TUNG T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Beaman et al 11/553,498 DIXON 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRUC T

2887 Ex Parte THORSEN et al 11/470,880 JEFFERSON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Skyba et al 10/984,320 BONILLA 101/obviousness-type double patenting 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L

The Federal Circuit has since stated that “inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act.” Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In CyberSource, the court noted that the method recited in Research Corp. “required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image).” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The method in that case “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human‟s mind.” Id. By contrast, in CyberSource, “one could mentally perform the fraud detection method” recited in the claims and therefore the claims in that case attempted to “capture unpatentable mental processes (i.e., abstract ideas).” Id. at 1376-77.

3762 Ex Parte Torgerson et al 11/184,718 FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER DIETRICH, JOSEPH M

No comments :