• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 54-68 of 85 results

1011 Exhibit: Exhibit 1011 Petitioners Demonstrative Exhibit

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 1011 Exhibit - Exhibit 1011 Petitioners Demonstrative Exhibit (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2019)
U.S. Patent No. 9,770,659 (“’659”)  “We are persuaded by Petitioner that the claims are directed to “‘controlling the display of a video game based on a received selection of panel information’” Decision Granting Institution [47], 8.
(3) Prong 1: “Way of Managing a Game and Playing the Game” Certain methods of organizing human activity: “Applicants' claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game” are abstract.
Step Two: No Inventive concept No “new source of type of information” Patent & PO Expert Admits Card-Based Game Mechanics are Conventional: Reply [29], p. 7-10; Ex. 1010 [29], 253:24-255:7 (objections, names, and text omitted); Ex. 1001 [29], 1:28-44.
Section 112(a) Petitioner arguments found persuasive by Board  No written description for “receives an instruction that the panel is disposed in the target division”: Decision Granting Institution [47], p. 22-23.
Section 112(b)  Metes and bounds of “panel is allowed to be disposed in the target division” are unclear: PO’s expert can’t determine when a panel is “allowed to be disposed” • • Is it based on size and shape?
cite Cite Document

2008 Exhibit: Remarks by Director Iancu at the Intellectual Property Owners Association 46th Annual Meeting, 92418

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2008-16 Exhibit - Remarks by Director Iancu at the Intellectual Property Owners Association 46th Annual Meeting, 92418 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2019)
“Resolution of patent-eligibility issues requires higher intervention, hopefully with ideas reflective of the best thinking that can be brought to bear on the subject.” Judge Plager, in another case, noted that “the state of the law is such as to give little confidence that the outcome is necessarily correct.” He explained that, given current § jurisprudence, it is “near impossible to know with any certainty whether the invention is or is not patent eligible.” And he concluded that we currently have an “incoherent body of doctrine.” And Judge Linn explained that the abstract idea test is “indeterminate and often leads to arbitrary results.” agree with all these sentiments.
Judge Giles Rich, an icon of patent law with an unparalleled understanding of—and impact on—our system, stated, in , the crux of the problem with respect to § jurisprudence.
Some basic “methods of organizing human activity,” such as fundamental economic practices like market hedging and escrow transactions, have also been excluded by the Supreme Court in Bilski and Alice.
4/7/2019 Remarks by Director Iancu at the Intellectual Property Owners Association 46th Annual Meeting | USPTO The Supreme Court has been interpreting this statute for the past years or so, and throughout that time has given only a limited number of examples of these “basic tools of scientific and technological work”—and arguably they can all generally fit into the categories just mentioned.
n sum, the proposed guidance for Section , which addresses step of Alice, would explain that eligibility rejections are to be applied only to claims that recite subject matter within the defined categories of judicial exceptions.
cite Cite Document

2007 Exhibit: USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 1919

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2007-15 Exhibit - USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 1919 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2019)
... should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas, except as follows: In the rare circumstance in which a USPTO employee believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless ...
21  In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in ...
In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in Section ...
... of Section 101.33 B. Step 2B: If The Claim Is Directed To A Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether The Claim Provides An Inventive Concept It is possible that a claim that does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception is nonetheless ...
... an “inventive concept,” rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B.39 Likewise, a claim that does not meaningfully integrate a judicial exception into a practical application of the exception sufficient to pass muster at Step 2A, may nonetheless ...
... the Enumerated Groupings of Abstract Ideas as Reciting an Abstract Idea In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless ...
Any rejection in which a claim limitation, which does not fall within the enumerated abstract ideas (tentative abstract idea), is nonetheless treated as reciting an abstract idea must be approved by the Technology Center Director (which ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

2008 Exhibit: Remarks by Director Iancu at the Intellectual Property Owners Association 46th Annual Meeting, 92418

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2008 Exhibit - Remarks by Director Iancu at the Intellectual Property Owners Association 46th Annual Meeting, 92418 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2019)
“Resolution of patent-eligibility issues requires higher intervention, hopefully with ideas reflective of the best thinking that can be brought to bear on the subject.” Judge Plager, in another case, noted that “the state of the law is such as to give little confidence that the outcome is necessarily correct.” He explained that, given current § jurisprudence, it is “near impossible to know with any certainty whether the invention is or is not patent eligible.” And he concluded that we currently have an “incoherent body of doctrine.” And Judge Linn explained that the abstract idea test is “indeterminate and often leads to arbitrary results.” agree with all these sentiments.
These two clarifications would help drive more predictability back into the analysis while remaining true to the case law that gave rise to these judicial exceptions in the first place.
Some basic “methods of organizing human activity,” such as fundamental economic practices like market hedging and escrow transactions, have also been excluded by the Supreme Court in Bilski and Alice.
4/7/2019 Remarks by Director Iancu at the Intellectual Property Owners Association 46th Annual Meeting | USPTO The Supreme Court has been interpreting this statute for the past years or so, and throughout that time has given only a limited number of examples of these “basic tools of scientific and technological work”—and arguably they can all generally fit into the categories just mentioned.
n sum, the proposed guidance for Section , which addresses step of Alice, would explain that eligibility rejections are to be applied only to claims that recite subject matter within the defined categories of judicial exceptions.
cite Cite Document

2007 Exhibit: USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 1919

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2007 Exhibit - USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 1919 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2019)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document

1010 Exhibit: Exhibit 1010 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume II

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 1010-14 Exhibit - Exhibit 1010 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume II (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document

1009 Exhibit: Exhibit 1009 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume I

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 1009-13 Exhibit - Exhibit 1009 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume I (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document

1010 Exhibit: Exhibit 1010 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume II

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 1010 Exhibit - Exhibit 1010 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume II (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

cite Cite Document

1009 Exhibit: Exhibit 1009 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume I

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 1009 Exhibit - Exhibit 1009 Deposition Transcript of David Crane, Volume I (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

cite Cite Document

1008 Exhibit: Declaration of Geoffrey R Miller in Support of Petitioners Motion for P...

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 1008-12 Exhibit - Declaration of Geoffrey R Miller in Support of Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

cite Cite Document

1008 Exhibit: Declaration of Geoffrey R Miller in Support of Petitioners Motion for P...

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 1008 Exhibit - Declaration of Geoffrey R Miller in Support of Petitioners Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

cite Cite Document

2004 Exhibit: Steve Moore Bio

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2004-11 Exhibit - Steve Moore Bio (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)

cite Cite Document

2004 Exhibit: Steve Moore Bio

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2004 Exhibit - Steve Moore Bio (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)

cite Cite Document

2002 Exhibit: Declaration of David Crane

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2002-9 Exhibit - Declaration of David Crane (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

cite Cite Document

2003 Exhibit: JP2007252696A with Machine Translation

Document PGR2018-00029, No. 2003-10 Exhibit - JP2007252696A with Machine Translation (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>