Tag Archives: s. 101

Life Science Patenting to Iancu – “We need help too!”

In his remarks presented at the recent 10th Annual Patent Law & Policy Conference at Georgetown University Law School, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu outlined the analytical framework for the new, eagerly awaited, PTO Guidance on patent eligible subject matter. Although … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Director Iancu’s IPO Address and Judge Rich

Although Director Iancu’s address primarily aims at the difficulty of determining when a claim is directed to an abstract idea, his precursor guiding light is clearly the late Judge Giles Rich. Notably, Iancu quotes from Judge Rich. These quotes are … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Ho – Burden Shifting in s.101 Rejections

In Judge Plager’s concurrence-in-part in Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc., he describes the “small puzzle” present in the Mayo/Alice analysis of a claim identified as directed to an abstract idea: “[I]f a court, after reviewing challenged claims in light of … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Galloway – Two Correlations are Better than One

Although, somehow, examiners and PTAB Judges are supposed to refrain from considering anticipation or obviousness when evaluating claim elements for the “inventive step” required for patent eligibility, that’s just not possible. The claims in Ex parte Galloway were directed to … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment