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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, October 13, 2016

smith2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Bolondi et al 12452825 - (D) GRIMES 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC SCHULTZ, JAMES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte Billmaier et al 13494465 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 HP Inc. YESILDAG, LAURA G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Sustaeta et al 12242525 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION I AT&W ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Miller et al 12883134 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EGLOFF, PETER RICHARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Ashburn 12271722 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 STEPHEN P, ASHBURN GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

1673 Ex Parte Baldaro et al 12515526 - (D) PRATS 103 Mossman, Kumar & Tyler PC LAU, JONATHAN S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Ravet et al 12445645 - (D) OWENS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON LI, JUN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Maheshwari et al 12124541 - (D) HORVATH 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED LIU, JUNG-JEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Muggler et al 13609536 - (D) OGDEN 103 Advent/Maxim ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN

2844 Ex Parte Ashdown 13255118 - (D) REN 103 PHILIPS LIGHTING BY OWENS, DOUGLAS W

2883 Ex Parte Lewallen et al 12946139 - (D) KENNEDY 103 CORNING INCORPORATED JORDAN, ANDREW

2898 Ex Parte CHENG et al 13278621 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER MATSIL, LLP ESKRIDGE, CORYW

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Kearns 13066509 - (D) SCHOPFER 101 MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY COLLINS, DOLORES R

Regarding the first step of the Alice analysis (i.e., determining whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept), a wagering game, as claimed here, is akin to fundamental economic practices related to exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities. See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818–819 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  As such, the claimed method and game are directed to an abstract idea.  See id. at 819. 

Regarding the second step of the Alice analysis (i.e., determining whether there are additional elements that transform the nature of the claim with a sufficient inventive concept), we find that the claims do no more than require conventional steps normally associated with wagering games, i.e. dealing a standard deck of cards, placing wagers, and resolving outcomes based on the cards dealt and the wagers placed.  “[A]ppending purely conventional steps to an abstract idea does not supply a sufficiently inventive concept.”  Id.  Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the additional elements recited in the claims do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea of a set of rules for playing a game.  See id. at 817 (Affirming rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 “[b]ecause the claims cover only the abstract idea of rules for playing a wagering game and use conventional steps of shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards.”)

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Colman et al 10080713 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 KING & SPALDING TON, THAIAN N

No comments :