SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label alice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alice. Show all posts

Monday, November 13, 2017

ariosa, alice

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Raghu 13540334 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102 VMWARE, INC. RUBIN, BLAKE J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Coffield et al 13393969 - (D) CHUNG Concurring POTHIER 112(2)/102 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. AUNG, SAN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Richard 12195806 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/103 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC HELM, CARALYNNE E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Shehan et al 13436584 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(2)/103 101/103 41.50 101 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP UBER, NATHAN C

Appellants do not identify any claimed features that would constitute “significantly more” than the abstract idea, in accord with Alice. Furthermore, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). Although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id. 

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 2106

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Gottlieb 13347806 - (D) PESLAK 112(2)/102/103 112(1) DOUGLAS J. VISNIUS TRAVERS, MATTHEW P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Bandholtz et al 14148483 - (D) NEW 102 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP POLIAKOVA-GEORGAN, EKATERINA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Arriola et al 13442560 - (D) BENNETT 103 Trellis IP Law Group/ Sony Corp. CHEN, CAI Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Yamada et al 12691116 - (D) BEST 103 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP CULLER, JILL E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Melcher et al 13074520 - (D) BENNETT 103 112(2)/101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY GARG, YOGESH C

3686 Ex Parte Song et al 12833428 - (D) KUMAR 101 GE Healthcare, IP Department LUBIN, VALERIE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Boschetti Sacco 12298625 - (D) BARRETT 112(2) 101/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY

3742 Ex Parte Vinegar et al 13567799 - (D) DOUGAL 102/103/double patenting SHELL OIL COMPANY PAIK, SANG YEOP

3752 Ex Parte Biagi et al 11876799 - (D) GUIJT 102 112(2) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation LEE, CHEE-CHONG

3772 Ex Parte Munzel 12714804 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2)/103 Blue Filament Law HICKS, VICTORIA J

3782 Ex Parte Buchhalter 13989862 - (D) CALVE 103 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC BATTISTI, DEREK J

3788 Ex Parte Smalley 13268264 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP POON, ROBERT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 13758492 - (D) MACDONALD 101 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP FLYNN, KEVIN H

Monday, April 10, 2017

affinity, alice

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Brown et al 13435503 - (D) GARRIS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DULKO, MARTA S

1782 Ex Parte Brandenburger et al 12663930 - (D) INGLESE 103 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP LAN, YAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Sundstrom 14026622 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/102 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3626 Ex Parte MCCOY 12256502 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER

Adding generic computer parts and functions to a container does not elevate the claims to eligibility. Rather, we find that the steps of the claims, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“Limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render any claims any less abstract.”)

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 2106

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Tyrer 13387238 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 112(2) MAIER & MAIER, PLLC SZAFRAN, BRIEANNA TARAH LARELL

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Lenze et al 13156260 - (D) RANGE 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. LEE, REBECCA Y

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS B.V., Requester, v. QUAD/TECH, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6867423 et al 10/245,469 95000526 - (D) SIU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP Quad/Graphics NGUYEN, MINH T original LEE, PATRICK J

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

alice, enfish, diamond1, thales

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Cao et al 13675685 - (D) FLAX 101/112(2)/102/double patenting Riverside Law LLP SISSON, BRADLEY L

In analyzing patent eligibility questions under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Supreme Court instructs us to “first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). However, the Supreme Court “has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’” for the purposes of step one. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2357). ...

Taking up the first step of the patent-eligibility analysis, we find claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Per the Supreme Court’s holding in Diehr, claims are patent eligible under § 101 “when a claim containing a mathematical formula [or mental processes] implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981). In terms of the Alice test, the Diehr claims were directed to an improvement in the rubber curing process, not a mathematical formula or mental process and, so, not an abstract idea. See Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, — F.3d —, 2017 WL 914618 *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2017).

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 2106

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) 2103 2106 2107.01 2111.05

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2133 Ex Parte Goss et al 12833589 - (D) EVANS 103 Hollingsworth Davis AHMED, HAMDY S

2137 Ex Parte Syu 12607011 - (D) FISHMAN 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP (WD/HGST) CYGIEL, GARY W

2165 Ex Parte Cook et al 14053395 - (D) HAMANN 102 Fabian Vancott IBM CORPORATION HICKS, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Durecu et al 12736286 - (D) KHAN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. CHOU, ALAN S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Boldon 10342560 - (D) ZECHER 103 HP Inc. GENACK, MATTHEW W

2699 Ex Parte Koyama 12873703 - (D) EVANS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) BALAOING, ARIEL A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte CHEN et al 13227965 - (D) GUPTA 103 NXP USA, Inc. HARRISTON, WILLIAM A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Nagwanshi et al 13407172 - (D) BROWNE 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP PATEL, KIRAN B

3664 Ex Parte Elchynski 11733349 - (D) O’HANLON 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG MANCHO, RONNIE M

3675 Ex Parte Iguchi et al 13132973 - (D) O’HANLON 102 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. KONERU, LAKSHMI S

3682 Ex Parte Cummins 11384593 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 41.50 101 Hewlett Packard Enterprise SITTNER, MATTHEW T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Heinrich et al 14049694 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Covidien LP HIGHLAND, RACHEL S

3744 Ex Parte Means 13276824 - (D) BARRETT 103 TRANE, International inc. MA, KUN KAI

3775 Ex Parte Olms et al 13544160 - (D) CALVE 102/103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Monahan 14087705 - (D) HAMANN 103 101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY LE, JESSICA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Pirila et al 10563545 - (D) CRAIG 102/103 102/103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd KELLEY, STEVEN SHAUN

2651 Ex Parte Nicholson et al 13612822 - (D) YAP 103 103 Bose Corporation PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte DEIBLER 11692110 - (D) MOHANTY 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(1) David E Herron II EBERSMAN, BRUCE I

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Marquez et al 12880113 - (D) CHANG 112(1) LOUIS VENTRE, JR WILSON, MICHAEL C

1644 Ex Parte Carmeliet et al 13785643 - (D) NEW concurring FREDMAN 112(1)/102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC GAMBEL, PHILLIP

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Rosendahl et al 13446475 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) CALL, DOUGLAS BRYANT

1756 Ex Parte ISHIGURO et al 12259525 - (D) HOUSEL 103/double patenting SUGHRUE-265550 CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN

1763 Ex Parte Takemura et al 13878471 - (D) GUEST 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. USELDING, JOHN E

1764 Ex Parte Hsu et al 13778716 - (D) ROSS 103 PPG Industries, Inc. BROOKS, KREGGT

1764 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11816791 - (D) TIMM 102 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KAUCHER, MARK S

1767 Ex Parte Guo et al 12347217 - (D) ROSS 103 Wiley Rein LLP SCOTT, ANGELA C

1792 Ex Parte Jensen et al 12825990 - (D) ROSS 103/double patenting OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

1792 Ex Parte Yamka et al 13054742 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY ZILBERING, ASSAF

1797 Ex Parte Sarkar et al 13285550 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2124 Ex Parte Lee et al 14009907 - (D) DANG 103 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP TRAN, MAI T

2132 Ex Parte Colglazier 13672896 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 CRGO LAW AHMED, ZUBAIR

2136 Ex Parte Duimovich et al 12767413 - (D) DANG 103 WINSTEAD P.C. IBM CORP. (WSM) WONG, NANCI N

2169 Ex Parte Jellison 12917596 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Garlick & Markison (IH) KIM, PAUL

2183 Ex Parte Knight et al 12710616 - (D) DIXON 102/103 Schiff Hardin LLP Infineon Technologies AG LINDLOF, JOHN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kummer 11933265 - (D) HAMANN 103 Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110) LIN, JASON K

2482 Ex Parte NAKAGAMI et al 14471108 - (D) HUME 103/double patenting Paratus Law Group, PLLC JEBARI, MOHAMMED

2484 Ex Parte DEEPAK 13209078 - (D) ELLURU 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH CHOWDHURY, NIGAR

2487 Ex Parte Vanman et al 12779564 - (D) HOFF 103 Winstead PC (IF) DIEP, NHON THANH

2491 Ex Parte Bond 12937980 - (D) HAMANN 102/103 HAMILTON, DESCANTIS & CHA (GENERAL) POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Yang et al 13125291 - (D) HAMANN 102/103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT HAMMONDS, MARCUS C

2669 Ex Parte VARONE 13867214 - (D) CURCURI 103 Slater Matsil, LLP - ST-EP SUMMERS, GEOFFREY E

2682 Ex Parte Murugesan et al 13605079 - (D) THOMAS 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES RUSHING, MARK S

2685 Ex Parte ELIAS 12333793 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA BENLAGSIR, AMINE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte YAMAZAKI et al 13315312 - (D) THOMAS 103/double patenting NIXON PEABODY, LLP NADAV, ORI

2835 Ex Parte Dittus et al 13729404 - (D) COLAIANNI 102 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. MATEY, MICHAEL A

2838 Ex Parte VIITANEN 13523066 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP ABB Inc. SPRENGER, KEVIN H

2851 Ex Parte Fenzi et al 14300124 - (D) PER CURIAM 101/double patenting Vista IP Law Group LLP KIK, PHALLAKA

2875 Ex Parte Wollner et al 12375299 - (D) DENNETT 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY TUMEBO, TSION M

2892 Ex Parte FOONG et al 14076706 - (D) DROESCH 103 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION ARORA, AJAY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Willberg et al 12808128 - (D) STEPINA 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. DITRANI, ANGELA M

3693 Ex Parte Determan 12643514 - (D) MOHANTY 103 HONEYWELL/ORTIZ & LOPEZ HAMILTON, SARA CHANDLER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Neff 13170690 - (D) HILL 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP CAVERN, JONATHAN

3746 Ex Parte Arnold et al 11946653 - (D) KORNICZKY 102/103 HONEYWELL/PANGRLE BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

alice, mayo, rapid litigation

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Mor et al 13765706 - (D) HAGY 103 41.50 103 D. KLIGLER I.P. SERVICES LTD. MONK, MARK T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte Ganesan et al 13445479 - (D) CUTITTA 103 112(1) HP Inc. SHAH, BHARATKUMAR S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Breitenbach et al 12297734 - (D) RANGE 102/103 Abel Law Group, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

1674 Ex Parte Hayes et al 13748964 - (D) SCHNEIDER 101 Larson & Anderson, LLC CHONG, KIMBERLY

35 U.S.C. § 101 states that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”   The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”  Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). 

The Federal Circuit has summarized the Supreme Court’s two-part test for distinguishing between claims to patent-ineligible exceptions, and claims to patent-eligible applications of those exceptions, as follows: 


Step one asks whether the claim is “directed to one of [the] patent-ineligible concepts.” [Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354].  If the answer is no, the inquiry is over: the claim falls within the ambit of § 101.  If the answer is yes, the inquiry moves to step two, which asks whether, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, “the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”  Id. (quoting Mayo [Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)]).   


Step two is described “as a search for an ‘inventive concept.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294).  At step two, more is required than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community,” which fails to transform the claim into “significantly more than a patent upon the” ineligible concept itself. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294. 


Rapid Litigation Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (paragraphing added). 

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 2106

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2103 2106

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Shellenberger 13770541 - (D) INGLESE 103 SEALED AIR CORPORATION SABERI, JASPER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Shibata 13800753 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Alpine CHOWDHURY, RAYEEZ R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Zhou et al 12914059 - (D) PINKERTON 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Nazarov et al 11475685 - (D) KUMAR 103 HolzerlPLaw, PC RENNER, CRAIG A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte De et al 11755288 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 101 Baker Botts LLP KANG, IRENE S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Racov et al 13379707 - (D) BROWNE 112(1) 103 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP I LEE, LAURA MICHELLE

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Jennings 13789803 - (D) DERRICK 103 BROOKS CUSHMAN P.C./FGTL LEONG, JONATHAN G

Monday, December 5, 2016

alice, mayo, amdocs

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte McBride et al 12377926 - (D) FLAX 101 Parker Highlander PLLC DEVI, SARVAMANGALA J N

We note, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’” and whether one takes a macroscopic or microscopic view of a claim may be determinative on the issue. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293); and see Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., — F.3d — ,2016 WL 6440387 *9 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016).

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 2106

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2103 2106

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte McAleese et al 12769997 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 103 41.50 103 Pillsbury Whithrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Kroger &Sunr) GATLING, STACIE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Schollmayer 10429283 - (D) HARLOW 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1636 Ex Parte BAKER et al 12950732 - (D) MAJORS 112(1)/101 Genomic Health, Inc. / McNeill Baur PLLC BROWN, MINDY G

1637 Ex Parte DAHL et al 13021141 - (D) SCHNEIDER 102 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/ Complete Genomics, Inc. THOMAS, DAVID C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Ludlow et al 12265666 - (D) HUME 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General BROWN, VERNAL U

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte SOUBRA 12966360 - (D) FETTING 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Trimble Navigation Limited ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex parte BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE,Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6616909 et al 09/492,246 90011112 - (R) GUEST 103 BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP TORRES VELAZQUEZ, NORCA LIZ original STRICKLAND, JONAS N

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

alice, mayo

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kandanala et al 13196949 - (D) CHEN 102/103 41.50 103 VERIZON BAIG, SAHAR A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Predale et al 12754682 - (D) FETTING 101/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, [] determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [] If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us? [] To answer that question, [] consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept'"-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."

Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)).


Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 2106

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2103 2106

3731 Ex Parte Lavigne et al 12791534 - (D) FLAX 103 Covidien LP SZPIRA, TIJLIE ANN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Olbert et al 12675137 - (D) MAJORS 103 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 12345131 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 101 CRGO LAW HA YIM, SAMUELE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte PIKKUJAMSA et al 11954845 - (D) CRAIG 103 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Petersen et al 13277290 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Fernandez et al 12371885 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/BASF KARST, DAVID THOMAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2195 Ex Parte Ly et al 11186294 - (D) PYONIN 112(2)/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (CA, Inc.) LEE, JAMES J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte KUROUME et al 13181778 - (D) HAGY 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P,C BUTTRAM, ALAN T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte KIM et al 12978755 - (D) PYONIN 102/103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP PATEL, MUKUNDBHAI G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte DiCroce et al 13106485 - (D) O'HANLON 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC NGUYEN, CUONG H

3686 Ex Parte Ghouri 11957387 - (D) FETTING 103 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP PATEL, NEHA

3689 Ex Parte Shah et al 12913921 - (D) FETTING 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise SANTOS-DIAZ, MARIA C

3695 Ex Parte Jones et al 10707491 - (D) FETTING 101/103 Docket Clerk-GOLD DASS, BARISH T

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

alice, mayo, ovshinsky

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2144 Ex Parte Dubinsky et al 11482133 - (D) HAAPALA 102/103 41.50 101 BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP DEBROW, JAMES J

We find these claims are ineligible for patent protection because they are directed to an abstract idea.

The decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) is controlling. We analyze the claims using a two part-analysis: 1) Determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea; and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct at 2350. ...

“[S]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S.Ct 1289, 1300 (2012); see also Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct at 2359–60 (purely conventional functions performed by the computer are not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).


Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Bringuier et al 12843402 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 CORNING INCORPORATED EL SHAMMAA, MARY A

2886 Ex Parte CHILDERS et al 12695613 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED PAJOOHI GOMEZ, TARA S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Steger et al 12571895 - (D) HOSKINS 103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. KRAMER, DEVON C

3747 Ex Parte Tao et al 12513019 - (D) WOODS 103 RATNERPRESTIA KIM, JAMES JAY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Gelman et al 10621112 - (D) DILLON 103 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. STMICROELECTRONICS KEEHN, RICHARD G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Viswanathan et al 11486990 - (D) MOORE 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C ROY, BAISAKHI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Amano et al 11870516 - (D) GRIMES 103 Covidien LP/Shumaker & Sieffert P.A. ZISKA, SUZANNE E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Weispfenning et al 11936614 - (D) HASTINGS 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG

1782 Ex Parte Enzinger et al 13137070 - (D) GARRIS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Batra 11648113 - (D) ZADO 103 ADDMG - ST (first filed US/Asia) CYGIEL, GARY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Barber-Mingo et al 12507939 - (D) SMITH 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. LAI, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Gattani et al 11523136 - (D) KAISER 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN PERROMAT, CARLOS

2625 Ex Parte Kwisthout 12446276 - (D) BEAMER 102/103 SHIMOKAJI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE

2681 Ex Parte Luterotti 12553542 - (D) PYONIN 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH LU, SHIRLEY

2682 Ex Parte Schilling et al 11422831 - (D) TROCK 103 Perkins Coie LLP GLENN PATENT GROUP LABBEES, EDNY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Baldwin et al 12543458 - (D) THOMAS 103 UNR/DRI Technology Transfer Office FAYYAZ, NASHMIYA SAQIB

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Fontaine et al 12451516 - (D) BRANCH 103 The Carter Law Firm NGUYEN, STEVEN H D

3671 Ex Parte Farmer 12504881 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. MITCHELL, JOEL F

3679 Ex Parte Leahy et al 11538990 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

An allegation of improper bias by an examiner must be made in separate correspondence and is a matter for petition, not appeal.  See, e.g., In re Ovshinsky, 24 USPQ2d 1241 (Comm'r Pat. 1992); see also 37 C.F.R. 1.3 (2012) ("Complaints against examiners ... must be made in correspondence separate from other papers.").

3689 Ex Parte Camhi et al 12323890 - (D) BAYAT 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Waggle et al 12035475 - (D) BAHR 103 KENNAMETAL INC. SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3727 Ex Parte Dewing 12455163 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 D. MORGAN TENCH BERRY, STEPHANIE R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY COMPANY, LTD. Appellant Ex Parte 6887114 et al 10/896,121 90012447 - (D) CHEN 103 JONES DAY THIRD PARTY REQUESTER : Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP PATEL, HETUL B original TSUKERMAN, LARISA Z

Friday, January 9, 2015

alice, mayo, mullin, herbert

custom search

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Ting et al 11294354 - (D) POTHIER Concurring Baumeister 101/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Nguyen 11985484 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 101/102 Martin Khang Nguyen CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).

In judging whether claim 12 falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then consider the elements of the claim — both individually and as an ordered combination — to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. This is a search for an “inventive concept” — an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Id.


Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

3685 Ex Parte CHATTE 11866007 - (D) HUTCHINGS 112(2)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC HUANG, TSAN-YU J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Avery Dennison Corporation Requester v. Continental Datalabel, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Flynn et al 6,860,050 10/390,339 95001608 - (D) GUEST 112(1)/103 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: AVERY DENNISION CORPORTION NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why the label assembly with the matrix strip intact would not meet the requirements of the claim. In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335 (CCPA 1973) (finding that a reference that describes a composition or structure as being an intermediate can be regarded as prior art) (citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390 (CCPA 1972)).