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
