Tag Archives: Warren Woessner

“Big Data” Claims Meet Mayo/Alice Rule

I am going to try to discuss two recent decisions by the PTAB, Ex parte Fiesner, Appeal 2018-00530 (9-10-18) and Ex parte Lehrer, Appeal 2016-007941 (8-29-2018). Both have claims that employ computers to process large amounts of input data to, … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BIO IP & Diagnostics Conference – Is the Titanic Turning Around?

On September 28th, I will be moderating a panel on patenting diagnostic tests – and related subject matter – such as methods of medical treatment, at BIO’s annual IP & Diagnostics Symposium in Alexandria, VA. At the beginning of 2018, … Continue reading

Posted in BIO, Section 101 | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Parenteau – PTAB Skips Step One of the Mayo/Alice Test?

In ex parte Ho, the subject of my last post, the PTAB reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims to a population of bone marrow cells obtained by two-stage culturing that expressed or failed to express certain markers. The PTAB wrote … Continue reading

Posted in Section 101, Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bhagat v. Iancu – Did the Myriad Decision Overrule Funk Bros.?

A September 6th post by Dennis Crouch at PatentlyO (“A Mixture of Known Compounds is Unpatentable without a Transformation“) led me to a closer reading of the cert. petition filed in Bhagat v. Iancu, (Case No. 18-277) an appeal from … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment