BUYSAFE, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claims that are squarely about creating a “contractual relationship” are directed to an abstract idea

by | Sep 3, 2014 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility

Claims that are squarely about creating a “contractual relationship” (e.g., a “transaction performance guaranty”) fall under the purview of abstract ideas for the purposes of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The “contractual relationship”...

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Tangential acknowledgment of a given issue by the board is not sufficient to avoid waiver

by | Aug 29, 2014 | [sub] appellate, PTO Procedure

Simply prompting the Board during an appeal to acknowledge a given issue in responding to arguments for a fundamentally separate issue is not sufficient to preserve the first issue for further appellate proceedings. In order to make sure that the issue is preserved,...

PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Computerized risk or security management for organized human activity is likely an abstract idea

by | Aug 26, 2014 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility

Claims related to a kind of “organizing human activity” (e.g., minimizing security risks during bingo ticket purchases) that can be “carried out in existing computers long in use” and/or “done mentally” are likely directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of...

FERRING B.V. v. WATSON LABORATORIES INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Obviousness requires a showing why skilled artisan would have chosen specific limitations claimed

by | Aug 22, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

In establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C § 103, it is not sufficient to merely assert in a conclusory manner that certain limitations “would have been obvious or could have been predicted” while failing to address why one of ordinary skill in the art would have...

FERRING B.V. v. APOTEX INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – The term “about” should be given its ordinary and accepted meaning of “approximately”

by | Aug 22, 2014 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

The term “about” should be given its ordinary and accepted meaning of “approximately” unless the patentee clearly redefines “about” in the specification. No more specific of an interpretation (e.g., a particular numerical range) is warranted by the use of this term...