SEARCH

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

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Chen et al HAIRSTON 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

BILSKI - AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gragg JEFFERY 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Signals are not patentable subject matter under § 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007), reh’g denied en banc, 515 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 70 (2008)).

According to U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) guidelines,

A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments . .
. embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and
therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. . . . For example, a
claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave
covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under § 101
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 2009, at 2, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf (emphasis in original) (“Interim Instructions”).

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Shah et al SIU 102(e)/103(a) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C.

Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads
on’ a prior art reference. In other words, if granting patent protection on the
disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing
the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also
covers subject matter not in the prior art.

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (citation omitted).

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 51 USPQ2d 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112, 2131.01, 2131.05

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Raaymakers EASTHOM 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS

No comments :