""For the purposes of this specific inquiry under § 101-whether the claims at issue contain enough structure such that they do not constitute 'software per se'-the alleged generic nature of the corresponding structure does not render the structure nonexistent." - CAFC opinion The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday, in a per curiam opinion, partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that rejected a pro se applicant's patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite."
"The examiner rejected claims 10-17 of the application as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), holding that "they were mixed claims reciting both apparatus limitations and method steps," and also rejected claims 10-18 as ineligible under Section 101 because they were "directed to software without any hardware or structural limitations and thus did not fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).""
A pro se applicant appealed a PTAB decision that held patent application No. 16/231,749 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. The application claimed a system and methods for controlling and optimizing information distribution in social media networks. The examiner found claims indefinite under §112(b) as mixed apparatus and method claims, and unpatentable under §101 as software without hardware limitations. The PTAB affirmed, citing absence of explicit hardware limitations and lack of means-plus-function wording. The Federal Circuit partially reversed and partially vacated the PTAB ruling, holding that alleged generic structure does not render claimed structure nonexistent for §101 analysis.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]