Search for: "Doe 35"
Results 2221 - 2240
of 17,228
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2009, 8:39 am
New facts have been alleged in the TAC and incorporated by reference in paragraphs 34-35. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 4:46 pm
The United States Supreme Court is considering whether the doctrine of laches will bar a patent infringement claim filed within the Patent Act’s six-year damage limitations period set forth in 35 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Jul 2020, 8:27 am
The IPKat has an email address, but not a postal one(Image by Riana Harvey)Does the notion of ‘address’ only refer to one’s own postal address or does it also encompass one’s own email and IP address, as well as telephone number? [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 6:22 am
Noelle does not claim a method of isolating CD40CR antigens, CD40-Ig, or the receptor CD40 itself. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 8:22 am
” Convention, art. 35. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 2:03 am
For example, in 2017 the Fourth Board of Appeal had to decide whether model Maartje Verhoef’s trade mark application for a sign depicting her face could be granted in respect of a variety of goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 35, 41, 42, and 44. [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 11:00 am
Importantly, the Notice states that the USPTO “does not consider adding the technical subject matter … to the … collaboration database under the program to constitute publication of the provisional application under 35 USC § 122(b). [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 2:45 am
According to that communication the examination was being carried out on the following application documents:Description, Pages28, 40 as originally filed1, 7, 20-27, 29-39, 41-59 received on 6 September 2011 with letter of 5 September 20112,3,6 received on 12 January 2012 with letter of 11 January 2012Claims, Numbers1-16 received on 12 January 2012 with letter of 11 January 2012Drawings, Sheets1/35-35/35 as originally filed4. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 8:30 pm
” 35 U.S.C. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 7:08 am
.' The claim language (which does not recite a unification theory) calls for using a 'computer and telecommunications network for receiving, sending and managing information from a subscriber to the network and from the network to a subscriber.'. . . [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 6:47 am
"[T]he fact that the [patent-in-suit] manages and implements the quotation process via a computer or 'automatically,' standing alone, does not render the asserted claims patent-eligible. . . . [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 6:41 am
[W]hen read as a whole, the patent here does not recite a computer as a post-solution limitation or a specific application of a more generic abstract idea. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 6:59 am
.' This fact does not help support a finding that the claims of the [patent-in-suit] are patentable. [read post]
8 May 2017, 7:22 am
"Claim 9 does not introduce the concept of remote patient monitoring, but it purports to improve upon prior art in the mobile cardiac elemetry field by taking advantage of 'a communications device which selectively establishes a communications link between the remote monitoring unit and the central unit.' In so doing, Claim 9 purports to 'adopt[] a new data transfer architecture with improved selectivity of data transmission but retention of the data accumulation… [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 6:46 am
Such a characterization does not embody the Internet centric concept of the claims. . . . [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 7:25 am
While [plaintiff] argues that the purpose of 'claim 1 is to benefit the interface service computer system that is providing the communications,' the [patent] does not recite any specific method through which an interface server’s website is able to retain visitors to its site, or that the purpose of the [patent] is to result in this benefit. . . . [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 6:47 am
The fact that [plaintiff's] method is performed online—rather than in an office, over the phone, or through email—does not change the Court’s conclusion that Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. [read post]
10 Jun 2016, 6:36 am
The patent does not, in fact, recite a law of nature. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 7:12 am
And although the Patent purports to solve a number of problems with remotely controlling devices, it does not solve those problems through an improvement in any specific technology. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 6:49 am
.' Indulging every inference in [plaintiff's] favor, the Court concludes the [patent] does not embody an impermissibly abstract idea. [read post]
