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

Monday, December 1, 2014

alice, mayo, ultramercial

custom search

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

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.


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

No comments :