SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label ultramercial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ultramercial. Show all posts

Thursday, May 7, 2015

ultramercial

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Shetty et al 12370655 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Wang 11032550 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC SAFAVI, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Hyltander et al 10529496 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3734 Ex Parte Barker et al 11952883 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Inskeep Intellectual Property Group, Inc. EREZO, DARWIN P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Weiser et al 11968671 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 41.50 103 Tucker Ellis LLP Brainlab AG BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lyseggen 11750704 - (D) PINKERTON 103 NOVAK DRUCE AND QUIGG LLP BETIT, JACOB F

2158 Ex Parte Radenkovic et al 12348383 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DL) SMITH, BRANNON W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2479 Ex Parte Couturier 10505227 - (D) HORVATH 103 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) CHRISS, ANDREW W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Cowcher 12646193 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 EIP US LLP STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Claus et al 11495235 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. MARCUS, LELAND R

3694 Ex Parte Neece et al 11846000 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC RANKINS, WILLIAM E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Kuester et al 12033611 - (D) GOODSON 101 103 Kutak Rock LLP BALDORI, JOSEPH B

Having determined that claim 12 is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, we must secondly consider the elements of claim 12 individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements of the claim transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The Examiner’s analysis under the machine-or-transformation test is germane to this second step of the Alice framework. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (holding that although the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test governing § 101 analyses, it “can provide a ‘useful clue’ in the second step of the Alice framework”).

The Examiner notes that claim 12 recites cards and a base, but determines that because the cards and base


do not actually perform the step of arranging a plurality of cards, or of playing the game, and since the method could be performed with common game playing items (e.g. a deck of cards and a table) this is not considered the use of a particular machine to perform any step of the claimed method, nor is it a meaningful tie to a machine or apparatus.


Ans. 10. Appellants argue that the claimed method is tied to a particular apparatus insofar as it recites a base having compartments sized and shaped to receive and retain cards. See App. Br. 12–13. Appellants assert that the base cannot be any ordinary table, as the Examiner contends, because playing a game on a table would not satisfy these express limitations in claim 12. See id. at 13; see also Reply Br. 5 (“The method claims literally cannot occur without the physical articles described in the claims.”).


We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s analysis, in effect, inappropriately reads limitations out of claim 12.


Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 100 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2106

Monday, December 1, 2014

alice, mayo, ultramercial

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1779 Ex Parte Werner et al 12158558 - (D) WARREN 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Roche) JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Tinti 12387853 - (D) KERINS 103 James E. Curry GRAHAM, MARK S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Olbrich et al 12306853 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1771 Ex Parte Iyer et al 12784696 - (D) PAK 103 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1792 Ex Parte Bekele 12828461 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SEALED AIR CORPORATION THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2898 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 12076994 - (D) WARREN 103 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. SHOOK, DANIEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Levin 10787486 - (D) BROWNE 101 GRACE J FISHEL COLLINS, DOLORES R

The Supreme Court has 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.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012). According to the Supreme Court’s framework, we must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Id. If so, we must secondly “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.” Id. The Supreme Court characterizes the second step of the 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.”’ Id. ...

Like the claim at issue in Ultramercial, “[t]his ordered combination of steps recites an abstraction” as it has no particular concrete or tangible form. Ultramercial, Inc. and Ultramercial LLC v. Hulu , LLC and Wildtangent, Inc., 2014 WL 5904902, 4 (Fed. Cir. 2014). ...


“The second step in the [Alice] analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method.” Ultramercial at 5 (citing Mayo at 1297). Our reviewing court instructs us that “[w]e must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an ‘inventive concept’ to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Alice at 2357 (quoting Mayo at 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter “requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. (quoting Mayo at 1294). Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo at 1298.


REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 DEEP SKY SOFTWARE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 6738770 et al 09/823,406 95000625 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP Third Party Requester: THOMPSON & KNIGHT, L.L.P. WOOD, WILLIAM H original AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 APPLE INC. Requester v. S3 GRAPHICS CO. LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6775417 et al 10/052,613 95000585 - (D) DILLON 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg TRAN, HENRY N original DO, ANH HONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 GOOGLE INC. Requester v. INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6199014 et al 08/997,677 95002031 - (D) CURCURI 103 Ascenda Law Group, PC Third Party Requester: Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original ISSING, GREGORY C

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

ultramercial, alappat

if the blogger search box is broken use custom search:

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Janakiraman 11089395 - (D) HUME 103 37 CFR 41.50 101 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11231557 - (D) BEGLEY 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WENDELL, ANDREW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Chen et al 11468403 - (D) HANLON 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C SWANSON, WALTER H

2856 Ex Parte Morris 11347471 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(2)/103 R. REAMS GOODLOE, P.S. RAEVIS, ROBERT R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Montabaur 11345614 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102(b) KF ROSS PC NGUYEN, DUNG V

3744 Ex Parte Malone et al 10836665 - (D) CAPP 102(b)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LEO, LEONARD R

3762 Ex Parte Gunderson et al 11564132 - (D) GRIMES 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) HOLMES, REX R

3782 Ex Parte Stevens 11291631 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 QUARLES & BRADY, LLP NEWHOUSE, NATHAN JEFFREY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Behzad et al 11079961 - (D) DANG 103 102(e)/103 GARLICK & MARKISON LAM, KENNETH T

2648 Ex Parte Maerzinger et al 11685288 - (D) FRAHM 102(b)/103 103 SpryIP, LLC IFX WENDELL, ANDREW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Call et al 11412859 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 112(1) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. VALONE, THOMAS F

2894 Ex Parte Mao et al 11915039 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 WINSTEAD PC NGUYEN, DUY T V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Harmer et al 12127881 - (D) SPAHN 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD SERVICES RO, YONG-SUK

See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[P]rogramming creates a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.”) (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Alappat, In re, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2106

DONNER 2: 467, 469; 6: 675, 678-82, 685, 704, 705, 708, 719, 726, 812-816; 10: 1137, 1139
HARMON 2: 63; 6: 366; 18: 78, 94; 19: 7, 19, 422, 473

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Testrake et al 11376628 - (D) MORRISON 103 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3744 Ex Parte Spicer et al 11356475 - (D) BAHR 103 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY ROSATI,BRANDON MICHAEL

3744 Ex Parte McCordic et al 11447488 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 Docket Clerk-Raytheon/MWM WALBERG, TERESA J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Poulakis 12735998 - (D) KIMLIN 102(b)/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1784 Ex Parte Liu 12491427 - (D) KIMLIN 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J

2427 Ex Parte Gentrix 10546393 - (D) DANG 103 NXP B.V. TELAN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte WANG 12038451 - (D) FRAHM 102(e) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd (for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd) ROBERTS, BRIAN S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Van Lieshout et al 11089194 - (D) POTHIER 112(1) 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LEE, JUSTIN YE

2649 Ex Parte Russo et al 11022141 - (D) DIXON 103 WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) AKINYEMI, AJIBOLA A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte KATO et al 11765081 - (D) FRAHM 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. LE, TUNG X

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Lee 12369139 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC HUSON, JOSHUA DANIEL

3672 Ex Parte MARTINEZ et al 12685362 - (D) JUNG 103 SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD SERVICES ANDREWS, DAVID L

3679 Ex Parte Zelek 11502075 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102(b) BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP KEE, FANNIEC

3695 Ex Parte Birtwell et al 11001246 - (D) FETTING 102(b)/103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD ROBINSON, KITO R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Anliker 10538168 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP CHU, KING M

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Darcy et al 11155677 - (R) SAINDON 103 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP (Xerox) CUMBESS, YOLANDA RENEE

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex parte WALKER DIGITAL, LLC 90009918 6263505 08/886,006 CURCURI 112(1)/112(2) 102(e)/103 Fahmi, Sellers, Embert & Davitz THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATENTBLAST RALIS, STEPHEN J original MILLER, JOHN W

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 CENTILLION DATA SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., QWEST CORPORATION, AND QWEST COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1084 5,287,270 07/984,374 MOORE summary judgment of non-infringement summary judgment of non-infringement Blank Rome LLP; Morrison & Foerster, LLP BRUTMAN, LAURA

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

alappat, ultramercial

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Kawashima 10821732 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE SRIVASTAVA, KAILASH C

We agree with Appellant that the claim language requiring programs that enable a processor to carry out specific functions defines structural limitations, and is not merely a recitation of intended use. See Ultramercial,Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[P]rogramming creates a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.”) (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Alappat, In re, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2106
HARMON 2: 63; 6: 366; 18: 78, 94; 19: 7, 19, 422, 473
DONNER 2: 467, 469; 6: 675, 678-82, 685, 704, 705, 708, 719, 726, 812-16; 10: 1137, 1139

Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 100 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2106
HARMON 2: 5

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Salgado et al 11273132 - (D) FREDMAN 102 Prass LLP AUGUSTIN, MARCELLUS

2675 Ex Parte Aldrich et al 10812626 - (D) GRIMES 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. CRUZ, IRIANA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Cave 11717292 - (D) TARTAL 103 STUART WHITTINGTON DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte De La Mettrie et al 11080633 - (D) SCHEINER 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC MACAULEY, SHERIDAN R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Chandrachood et al 11867740 - (D) KIMLIN 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX REMAVEGE, CHRISTOPHER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Schmitt et al 10854168 - (D) BUSCH 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP HO, BINH VAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2695 Ex Parte Rainisto 11284695 - (D) THOMAS 103 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP SHARIFI-TAFRESHI, KOOSHA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Hieronymus et al 11415052 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP HINZE, LEO T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Senga et al 11698980 - (D) GREENHUT 103 SUGHRUE-265550 CHIANG, JENNIFER C

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 PCT INTERNATIONAL, INC. Respondent, Requestor v. PPC BROADBAND, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner 95001492 6,716,062 10/277,756 McCARTHY 103 John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts; Third Party Requester: Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. original Hiscock & Barclay LLC SAGER, MARK ALAN original FIGUEROA, FELIX O

Friday, June 8, 2012

diamond1, parker, gottschalk, ultramercial

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Ho 10/599,779 FREDMAN Concurring PRATS 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP YU, GINA C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Ahmed 10/126,699 WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C

“Although abstract principles are not eligible for patent protection, an application of an abstract idea may well be deserving of patent protection. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (1981) (“an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978) (“While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.”). The application of an abstract idea to a “new and useful end” is the type of invention that the Supreme Court has described as deserving of patent protection. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). After all, unlike the Copyright Act which divides idea from expression, the Patent Act covers and protects any new and useful technical advance, including applied ideas.” Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011).


Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/518,540 KAUFFMAN 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

3761 Ex Parte Nakahata et al 10/736,282 BONILLA 112(1)/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAND, MELANIE JO

3761 Ex Parte Thorson et al 11/373,029 PRATS 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3774 Ex Parte Foley 11/451,836 McCARTHY 103 Medtronic, Inc (Spinal/Krieg DeVault) SWEET, THOMAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Zou et al 10/379,733 FETTING 103 obviousness-type double patenting ACS (Affiliated Computer Services)/Finnegan OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Herman 10/995,616 HASTINGS 102/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP WALKER, KEITH D

1735 Ex Parte Barnes et al 11/426,937 HASTINGS 102/103 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP SAAD, ERIN BARRY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Flanagan et al 10/940,199 COURTENAY 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global JOHNSTON, PHILLIP A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/216,275 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP HEWITT II, CALVIN L
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED 
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Campbell et al  11/507,979 COURTENAY 103 PATE BAIRD, PLLC MARTELLO, EDWARD

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

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

ultramercial, research corp.

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/115,529 SMITH 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

1765 Ex Parte Kriegel et al 11/119,668 HASTINGS 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

1772 Ex Parte Robotti et al 11/064,575 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1775 Ex Parte Muller-Hartmann et al 10/475,840 COLAIANNI 103(a) LEYDIG, VOIT AND MAYER EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Betts et al 11/132,648 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2166 Ex Parte Pauly 10/432,769 HOFF 103(a) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN

2174 Ex Parte Hackworth 09/862,949 HOFF 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER KE, PENG

2193 Ex Parte Lutkemeyer 11/029,990 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER NGO, CHUONG D

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ozen 10/444,337 DANG 102(e) Zenith Electronics Corporation EXAMINER WANG, TED M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte von Blucher 10/834,776 BAHR 103(a) Cozen O'Connor EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M

3775 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 10/357,449 GREENHUT 102(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

3781 Ex Parte Lummis et al 10/758,459 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) RUSSELL H. WALKER WALKER, McKENZIE & WALKER, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, TRI M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte McLean et al 11/684,669 HASTINGS
102(b) 102(b) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/671,938 ROBERTSON
101/112(2)/103(a) 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL

With respect to the judicially created “abstract idea” exception, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently stated that it “does ‘not presume to define ‘abstract’ beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.’” Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
REEXAMINATION

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5631946 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,492 90/006,679 08/442,112 Per Curiam 103(a) 103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2744 Ex Parte 6067451 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,494 90/006,681 90/007,726 09/161,462 Per Curiam
103(a)/102(b) 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5438611 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,676 08/247,466 Per Curiam
102(b)/103(a) 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5819172 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,493 90/006,680 90/007,735 08/844,957 Per Curiam 102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5625670 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/007,723 90/006,678 90/006,491 08/443,430 Per Curiam
103(a) 102(b)/103(a) /112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5436960 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,533 90/006,675 90/007,731 07/702,939 Per Curiam 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5479472 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,677 07/702,938
102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) Per Curiam COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Krishnan et al 10/980,478 FREDMAN 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S

1617 Ex Parte Cromack et al 10/526,755 FREDMAN 102(b) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER AZPURU, CARLOS A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/940,538 SMITH 103(a) Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1774 Ex Parte Patch 10/984,154 SMITH
112(1)/103(a) AKERMAN SENTERFITT EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1788 Ex Parte Melvin 11/508,518 GUEST
102(b)/103(a) Clifford G. Frayne EXAMINER
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Firman 10/624,160 HUGHES 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINER
TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Vaidyanathan et al 10/040,173 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN

2612 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/315,455 DANG 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, KERRI L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Greer et al 10/908,899 MOHANTY 103(a) SMITH RISLEY TEMPEL SANTOS LLC EXAMINER TRAN, HAI

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Adachi et al 10/580,248 ADAMS
103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K