In its Decision, the Board is instituting covered business method patent review of certain claims of the ’245 patent based on the following grounds: claims 1-16 as directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claim 12 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph; claims 1-4 and 6-16 as having been obvious over Murray under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); claim 5 as having been obvious over the combination of Murray and Con Edison under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and claims 1, 2, 5-9, 13, and 14 as having been obvious over the combination of Brewster and Con Edison under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board denied all other grounds raised in the Petition. Continue reading
Category Archives: Patent Eligibility
Final Written Decision CBM2013-00040
all challenged claims found unpatentable
In its Final Written Decision, the Board ordered that claims 1-6 and 8-23 of the ’944 patent were held unpatentable. It was the Board’s position that Petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 and 8–23 of the ’944 patent were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Continue reading
Final Written Decision CBM2013-00030
all challenged claims found patent ineligible
In its Final Written Decision, the Board ordered that each of challenged claims 1-21 of the ’524 patent was unpatentable as not being directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Also, the Board dismissed Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. Continue reading
Final Written Decision CBM2013-00025
All challenge claims found to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101
In its Final Written Decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that each of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15 of the ’430 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Also, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude the Declaration of Dr. Freedman. Continue reading