| Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee |
Notice of Expiration of Patents
Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required
maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent
requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th
or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first
maintenance fee which was not paid.
According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have
expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any
applicable surcharge.
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON November 19, 2014
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,481,023 09/939,364 11/19/02
6,481,035 10/006,468 11/19/02
6,481,038 09/759,860 11/19/02
6,481,039 09/862,338 11/19/02
6,481,043 09/878,659 11/19/02
6,481,044 09/701,346 11/19/02
6,481,045 09/521,346 11/19/02
6,481,046 09/535,323 11/19/02
6,481,048 09/596,232 11/19/02
6,481,053 10/044,528 11/19/02
6,481,069 09/690,225 11/19/02
6,481,074 09/330,217 11/19/02
6,481,082 09/649,098 11/19/02
6,481,084 09/801,466 11/19/02
6,481,085 09/357,514 11/19/02
6,481,108 09/852,539 11/19/02
6,481,112 09/946,575 11/19/02
6,481,117 09/875,759 11/19/02
6,481,122 09/849,954 11/19/02
6,481,127 08/980,042 11/19/02
6,481,134 09/823,228 11/19/02
6,481,135 09/737,436 11/19/02
6,481,144 09/637,465 11/19/02
6,481,146 09/759,941 11/19/02
6,481,147 09/757,016 11/19/02
6,481,148 09/580,142 11/19/02
6,481,149 08/574,606 11/19/02
6,481,159 09/448,939 11/19/02
6,481,164 09/670,247 11/19/02
6,481,170 09/255,512 11/19/02
6,481,172 09/481,893 11/19/02
6,481,177 09/698,605 11/19/02
6,481,178 09/821,299 11/19/02
6,481,181 09/607,578 11/19/02
6,481,195 09/673,099 11/19/02
6,481,196 09/528,821 11/19/02
6,481,200 09/690,392 11/19/02
6,481,213 09/973,413 11/19/02
6,481,216 09/918,319 11/19/02
6,481,222 09/494,054 11/19/02
6,481,231 09/950,187 11/19/02
6,481,243 09/824,392 11/19/02
6,481,246 09/619,100 11/19/02
6,481,255 10/041,143 11/19/02
6,481,256 09/592,908 11/19/02
6,481,257 09/732,319 11/19/02
6,481,260 09/821,408 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 7 |
6,481,265 09/707,484 11/19/02
6,481,268 09/416,325 11/19/02
6,481,269 09/214,936 11/19/02
6,481,270 09/651,312 11/19/02
6,481,278 09/776,877 11/19/02
6,481,281 09/611,381 11/19/02
6,481,283 09/542,605 11/19/02
6,481,298 09/711,653 11/19/02
6,481,307 09/644,625 11/19/02
6,481,311 09/722,000 11/19/02
6,481,317 09/435,522 11/19/02
6,481,321 09/903,490 11/19/02
6,481,331 09/762,488 11/19/02
6,481,333 09/599,497 11/19/02
6,481,335 09/470,733 11/19/02
6,481,339 09/694,427 11/19/02
6,481,344 09/943,768 11/19/02
6,481,349 09/821,289 11/19/02
6,481,352 09/730,270 11/19/02
6,481,356 09/747,826 11/19/02
6,481,358 09/873,677 11/19/02
6,481,360 09/779,250 11/19/02
6,481,361 09/657,723 11/19/02
6,481,364 09/909,184 11/19/02
6,481,372 09/901,092 11/19/02
6,481,376 09/950,258 11/19/02
6,481,381 09/951,942 11/19/02
6,481,391 09/987,184 11/19/02
6,481,392 09/711,154 11/19/02
6,481,406 09/800,243 11/19/02
6,481,407 09/540,269 11/19/02
6,481,408 09/915,336 11/19/02
6,481,410 09/786,346 11/19/02
6,481,411 09/470,245 11/19/02
6,481,426 09/723,863 11/19/02
6,481,440 09/746,021 11/19/02
6,481,446 09/901,049 11/19/02
6,481,451 09/607,036 11/19/02
6,481,452 09/732,232 11/19/02
6,481,462 09/798,444 11/19/02
6,481,464 10/107,452 11/19/02
6,481,465 09/767,274 11/19/02
6,481,470 10/190,364 11/19/02
6,481,472 09/880,614 11/19/02
6,481,473 09/848,455 11/19/02
6,481,481 09/861,358 11/19/02
6,481,483 09/610,589 11/19/02
6,481,484 09/599,881 11/19/02
6,481,496 09/593,840 11/19/02
6,481,508 09/730,216 11/19/02
6,481,521 09/804,605 11/19/02
6,481,522 09/605,886 11/19/02
6,481,523 09/652,780 11/19/02
6,481,531 09/955,995 11/19/02
6,481,532 09/958,820 11/19/02
6,481,536 09/929,731 11/19/02
6,481,537 09/940,118 11/19/02
6,481,541 09/770,117 11/19/02
6,481,549 09/801,462 11/19/02
6,481,554 09/714,460 11/19/02
6,481,556 09/744,606 11/19/02
6,481,557 09/876,523 11/19/02
6,481,566 09/875,824 11/19/02
6,481,573 09/950,721 11/19/02
6,481,576 08/722,345 11/19/02
6,481,589 09/791,078 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 8 |
6,481,595 09/492,432 11/19/02
6,481,597 10/074,647 11/19/02
6,481,600 09/750,496 11/19/02
6,481,613 09/505,118 11/19/02
6,481,616 09/978,872 11/19/02
6,481,619 09/693,387 11/19/02
6,481,625 09/442,718 11/19/02
6,481,633 09/605,831 11/19/02
6,481,635 09/757,163 11/19/02
6,481,639 09/600,869 11/19/02
6,481,641 10/024,151 11/19/02
6,481,646 09/664,075 11/19/02
6,481,654 09/666,360 11/19/02
6,481,656 09/859,445 11/19/02
6,481,665 09/725,601 11/19/02
6,481,668 10/052,036 11/19/02
6,481,672 09/761,840 11/19/02
6,481,675 09/849,486 11/19/02
6,481,681 09/650,540 11/19/02
6,481,688 09/650,526 11/19/02
6,481,689 09/861,301 11/19/02
6,481,691 09/671,165 11/19/02
6,481,702 09/665,426 11/19/02
6,481,714 09/551,325 11/19/02
6,481,715 09/839,392 11/19/02
6,481,720 09/642,105 11/19/02
6,481,734 09/716,666 11/19/02
6,481,735 09/574,964 11/19/02
6,481,742 09/729,956 11/19/02
6,481,743 09/872,568 11/19/02
6,481,744 09/738,381 11/19/02
6,481,748 09/606,234 11/19/02
6,481,754 09/864,753 11/19/02
6,481,757 09/682,539 11/19/02
6,481,769 10/035,512 11/19/02
6,481,775 09/732,957 11/19/02
6,481,781 09/992,693 11/19/02
6,481,784 09/783,661 11/19/02
6,481,785 09/530,644 11/19/02
6,481,788 09/710,869 11/19/02
6,481,811 09/650,514 11/19/02
6,481,815 09/692,643 11/19/02
6,481,818 09/638,225 11/19/02
6,481,822 09/793,316 11/19/02
6,481,823 09/563,008 11/19/02
6,481,825 09/265,817 11/19/02
6,481,827 09/773,425 11/19/02
6,481,830 09/884,071 11/19/02
6,481,831 09/611,810 11/19/02
6,481,833 09/635,997 11/19/02
6,481,835 09/771,540 11/19/02
6,481,839 09/486,237 11/19/02
6,481,842 09/740,084 11/19/02
6,481,845 09/925,784 11/19/02
6,481,847 09/631,517 11/19/02
6,481,848 09/746,101 11/19/02
6,481,852 09/797,844 11/19/02
6,481,862 09/652,297 11/19/02
6,481,865 09/468,571 11/19/02
6,481,868 09/956,110 11/19/02
6,481,870 09/775,390 11/19/02
6,481,876 09/775,627 11/19/02
6,481,878 10/037,076 11/19/02
6,481,884 09/665,877 11/19/02
6,481,886 09/513,726 11/19/02
6,481,897 10/003,214 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 9 |
6,481,900 09/882,330 11/19/02
6,481,901 09/922,323 11/19/02
6,481,904 09/797,776 11/19/02
6,481,905 09/861,640 11/19/02
6,481,910 10/014,866 11/19/02
6,481,913 09/826,959 11/19/02
6,481,928 09/650,265 11/19/02
6,481,931 09/665,023 11/19/02
6,481,932 09/713,210 11/19/02
6,481,933 09/706,941 11/19/02
6,481,947 09/738,339 11/19/02
6,481,951 09/398,317 11/19/02
6,481,952 10/022,840 11/19/02
6,481,954 09/308,450 11/19/02
6,481,959 09/844,889 11/19/02
6,481,963 09/652,961 11/19/02
6,481,964 09/908,736 11/19/02
6,481,978 09/752,729 11/19/02
6,481,988 09/817,693 11/19/02
6,481,990 09/814,677 11/19/02
6,481,991 09/811,491 11/19/02
6,481,992 09/781,539 11/19/02
6,481,998 08/483,441 11/19/02
6,481,999 09/804,303 11/19/02
6,482,000 09/884,973 11/19/02
6,482,008 09/194,810 11/19/02
6,482,010 09/107,339 11/19/02
6,482,014 09/655,783 11/19/02
6,482,019 09/687,016 11/19/02
6,482,030 10/025,657 11/19/02
6,482,032 10/036,080 11/19/02
6,482,036 10/172,330 11/19/02
6,482,037 10/033,654 11/19/02
6,482,040 09/584,953 11/19/02
6,482,041 09/954,545 11/19/02
6,482,045 09/530,566 11/19/02
6,482,046 09/933,941 11/19/02
6,482,052 09/840,662 11/19/02
6,482,054 09/871,185 11/19/02
6,482,057 09/690,636 11/19/02
6,482,071 09/931,567 11/19/02
6,482,072 09/698,396 11/19/02
6,482,076 09/594,110 11/19/02
6,482,077 09/539,854 11/19/02
6,482,083 09/857,156 11/19/02
6,482,085 09/488,067 11/19/02
6,482,106 09/777,926 11/19/02
6,482,109 09/726,001 11/19/02
6,482,110 09/844,138 11/19/02
6,482,111 09/507,589 11/19/02
6,482,117 09/673,646 11/19/02
6,482,128 09/435,220 11/19/02
6,482,129 09/826,376 11/19/02
6,482,131 09/757,237 11/19/02
6,482,133 09/621,256 11/19/02
6,482,135 09/499,253 11/19/02
6,482,141 09/912,820 11/19/02
6,482,144 09/680,488 11/19/02
6,482,145 09/503,483 11/19/02
6,482,149 09/568,697 11/19/02
6,482,150 09/908,700 11/19/02
6,482,156 09/800,220 11/19/02
6,482,159 09/515,531 11/19/02
6,482,165 09/692,682 11/19/02
6,482,172 09/501,416 11/19/02
6,482,176 09/555,248 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 10 |
6,482,177 09/394,318 11/19/02
6,482,186 09/672,103 11/19/02
6,482,192 09/971,454 11/19/02
6,482,195 09/626,382 11/19/02
6,482,196 09/399,739 11/19/02
6,482,203 10/004,759 11/19/02
6,482,204 08/637,095 11/19/02
6,482,205 09/556,606 11/19/02
6,482,219 09/686,255 11/19/02
6,482,220 09/444,772 11/19/02
6,482,249 09/723,330 11/19/02
6,482,250 09/513,945 11/19/02
6,482,251 09/926,044 11/19/02
6,482,253 09/675,848 11/19/02
6,482,257 09/787,591 11/19/02
6,482,263 09/684,266 11/19/02
6,482,265 09/785,378 11/19/02
6,482,286 09/402,975 11/19/02
6,482,295 09/662,001 11/19/02
6,482,296 09/687,888 11/19/02
6,482,297 09/744,156 11/19/02
6,482,298 09/671,223 11/19/02
6,482,299 09/743,366 11/19/02
6,482,319 10/141,314 11/19/02
6,482,333 09/476,314 11/19/02
6,482,335 09/858,969 11/19/02
6,482,336 09/731,541 11/19/02
6,482,337 09/492,183 11/19/02
6,482,348 09/542,080 11/19/02
6,482,360 09/850,290 11/19/02
6,482,361 09/383,633 11/19/02
6,482,362 09/625,227 11/19/02
6,482,372 09/747,459 11/19/02
6,482,378 09/588,775 11/19/02
6,482,379 09/704,894 11/19/02
6,482,383 09/674,574 11/19/02
6,482,385 09/794,122 11/19/02
6,482,391 09/555,743 11/19/02
6,482,397 09/551,342 11/19/02
6,482,412 09/674,608 11/19/02
6,482,413 09/795,979 11/19/02
6,482,428 09/928,874 11/19/02
6,482,431 09/860,956 11/19/02
6,482,438 09/348,948 11/19/02
6,482,449 09/770,800 11/19/02
6,482,450 09/498,605 11/19/02
6,482,453 09/818,484 11/19/02
6,482,464 09/807,217 11/19/02
6,482,469 09/546,518 11/19/02
6,482,470 09/618,378 11/19/02
6,482,472 09/413,852 11/19/02
6,482,480 09/591,811 11/19/02
6,482,484 09/587,886 11/19/02
6,482,485 09/373,410 11/19/02
6,482,491 09/581,546 11/19/02
6,482,495 08/814,921 11/19/02
6,482,500 09/438,284 11/19/02
6,482,502 09/502,103 11/19/02
6,482,503 08/196,676 11/19/02
6,482,510 09/635,608 11/19/02
6,482,512 09/690,176 11/19/02
6,482,518 09/364,207 11/19/02
6,482,524 09/036,927 11/19/02
6,482,529 09/849,651 11/19/02
6,482,534 09/781,285 11/19/02
6,482,536 09/673,218 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 11 |
6,482,538 09/912,994 11/19/02
6,482,546 09/526,375 11/19/02
6,482,549 09/797,051 11/19/02
6,482,550 09/704,841 11/19/02
6,482,552 09/420,336 11/19/02
6,482,558 09/782,382 11/19/02
6,482,568 09/662,160 11/19/02
6,482,569 09/572,203 11/19/02
6,482,576 09/634,239 11/19/02
6,482,577 09/306,296 11/19/02
6,482,578 10/085,823 11/19/02
6,482,580 09/971,341 11/19/02
6,482,581 09/291,739 11/19/02
6,482,582 09/910,924 11/19/02
6,482,583 09/632,337 11/19/02
6,482,585 08/840,765 11/19/02
6,482,586 08/975,953 11/19/02
6,482,591 09/054,969 11/19/02
6,482,592 09/153,242 11/19/02
6,482,594 09/882,246 11/19/02
6,482,597 09/480,884 11/19/02
6,482,608 09/580,734 11/19/02
6,482,610 09/646,335 11/19/02
6,482,622 09/645,707 11/19/02
6,482,631 09/647,224 11/19/02
6,482,635 09/967,376 11/19/02
6,482,636 09/373,257 11/19/02
6,482,640 09/889,990 11/19/02
6,482,647 09/724,067 11/19/02
6,482,654 09/500,062 11/19/02
6,482,655 08/096,338 11/19/02
6,482,657 09/749,563 11/19/02
6,482,668 09/260,044 11/19/02
6,482,670 09/661,304 11/19/02
6,482,673 09/091,291 11/19/02
6,482,676 08/886,557 11/19/02
6,482,677 09/955,202 11/19/02
6,482,684 09/275,423 11/19/02
6,482,685 10/037,014 11/19/02
6,482,686 09/615,077 11/19/02
6,482,687 09/840,229 11/19/02
6,482,695 09/676,441 11/19/02
6,482,711 09/428,820 11/19/02
6,482,714 09/512,320 11/19/02
6,482,717 10/016,762 11/19/02
6,482,725 09/640,083 11/19/02
6,482,741 09/377,717 11/19/02
6,482,747 09/218,038 11/19/02
6,482,751 09/842,465 11/19/02
6,482,752 08/685,788 11/19/02
6,482,755 09/880,513 11/19/02
6,482,757 09/770,850 11/19/02
6,482,761 09/648,812 11/19/02
6,482,765 09/284,798 11/19/02
6,482,766 09/597,156 11/19/02
6,482,769 09/712,424 11/19/02
6,482,774 09/673,996 11/19/02
6,482,779 09/813,285 11/19/02
6,482,786 09/700,555 11/19/02
6,482,787 09/743,236 11/19/02
6,482,789 09/529,264 11/19/02
6,482,791 10/059,253 11/19/02
6,482,803 08/523,030 11/19/02
6,482,804 09/530,315 11/19/02
6,482,808 09/700,871 11/19/02
6,482,812 09/835,742 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 12 |
6,482,817 09/552,066 11/19/02
6,482,818 09/770,536 11/19/02
6,482,833 09/484,142 11/19/02
6,482,834 09/828,633 11/19/02
6,482,836 09/403,393 11/19/02
6,482,838 09/947,087 11/19/02
6,482,846 09/941,690 11/19/02
6,482,851 09/630,636 11/19/02
6,482,856 09/348,698 11/19/02
6,482,860 08/896,280 11/19/02
6,482,864 09/319,023 11/19/02
6,482,871 08/464,022 11/19/02
6,482,873 09/700,742 11/19/02
6,482,876 09/462,942 11/19/02
6,482,885 09/628,875 11/19/02
6,482,888 09/874,025 11/19/02
6,482,891 09/777,067 11/19/02
6,482,900 09/509,095 11/19/02
6,482,901 09/767,549 11/19/02
6,482,902 09/600,313 11/19/02
6,482,907 09/496,105 11/19/02
6,482,909 09/963,870 11/19/02
6,482,911 09/850,699 11/19/02
6,482,913 09/499,316 11/19/02
6,482,919 09/813,659 11/19/02
6,482,923 09/268,311 11/19/02
6,482,927 08/708,123 11/19/02
6,482,941 09/509,653 11/19/02
6,482,947 09/015,642 11/19/02
6,482,950 08/479,077 11/19/02
6,482,951 10/010,978 11/19/02
6,482,954 09/915,797 11/19/02
6,482,965 09/813,758 11/19/02
6,482,966 09/773,045 11/19/02
6,482,973 09/945,912 11/19/02
6,482,974 09/946,082 11/19/02
6,482,982 09/803,006 11/19/02
6,482,987 09/824,371 11/19/02
6,482,991 09/974,189 11/19/02
6,483,005 09/806,640 11/19/02
6,483,008 09/304,603 11/19/02
6,483,010 09/606,304 11/19/02
6,483,012 09/331,359 11/19/02
6,483,022 09/672,183 11/19/02
6,483,025 09/506,133 11/19/02
6,483,035 09/739,958 11/19/02
6,483,037 10/008,422 11/19/02
6,483,046 09/559,018 11/19/02
6,483,068 09/767,260 11/19/02
6,483,076 09/564,360 11/19/02
6,483,083 09/877,147 11/19/02
6,483,089 09/715,561 11/19/02
6,483,090 09/465,964 11/19/02
6,483,092 10/114,404 11/19/02
6,483,095 09/573,383 11/19/02
6,483,104 09/068,969 11/19/02
6,483,112 09/353,325 11/19/02
6,483,114 09/531,213 11/19/02
6,483,125 09/905,319 11/19/02
6,483,132 09/825,936 11/19/02
6,483,137 09/942,205 11/19/02
6,483,153 09/418,316 11/19/02
6,483,176 09/740,881 11/19/02
6,483,181 09/837,255 11/19/02
6,483,190 09/618,726 11/19/02
6,483,197 09/388,990 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 13 |
6,483,199 09/839,116 11/19/02
6,483,203 09/590,565 11/19/02
6,483,212 09/678,847 11/19/02
6,483,214 09/710,336 11/19/02
6,483,221 09/763,551 11/19/02
6,483,228 09/927,061 11/19/02
6,483,235 09/365,888 11/19/02
6,483,239 09/762,301 11/19/02
6,483,248 09/870,678 11/19/02
6,483,250 09/715,124 11/19/02
6,483,253 09/720,823 11/19/02
6,483,263 09/492,983 11/19/02
6,483,264 09/685,927 11/19/02
6,483,275 09/298,804 11/19/02
6,483,287 09/924,331 11/19/02
6,483,292 09/850,381 11/19/02
6,483,294 09/511,755 11/19/02
6,483,296 09/589,772 11/19/02
6,483,300 09/730,182 11/19/02
6,483,305 09/597,527 11/19/02
6,483,317 09/699,446 11/19/02
6,483,324 09/582,856 11/19/02
6,483,329 09/650,161 11/19/02
6,483,331 09/823,958 11/19/02
6,483,337 09/625,393 11/19/02
6,483,340 09/884,757 11/19/02
6,483,348 09/696,383 11/19/02
6,483,353 09/999,650 11/19/02
6,483,357 09/811,578 11/19/02
6,483,358 09/833,296 11/19/02
6,483,362 09/924,330 11/19/02
6,483,369 09/970,365 11/19/02
6,483,373 09/670,740 11/19/02
6,483,392 09/622,559 11/19/02
6,483,398 09/848,368 11/19/02
6,483,410 09/872,324 11/19/02
6,483,411 09/783,010 11/19/02
6,483,422 09/907,126 11/19/02
6,483,423 09/427,842 11/19/02
6,483,432 09/624,513 11/19/02
6,483,437 09/667,860 11/19/02
6,483,442 09/905,072 11/19/02
6,483,444 09/784,291 11/19/02
6,483,446 10/004,188 11/19/02
6,483,461 09/645,921 11/19/02
6,483,467 09/824,230 11/19/02
6,483,483 09/268,376 11/19/02
6,483,485 09/550,172 11/19/02
6,483,496 09/348,709 11/19/02
6,483,497 09/280,266 11/19/02
6,483,499 09/553,758 11/19/02
6,483,511 09/224,038 11/19/02
6,483,539 08/898,258 11/19/02
6,483,542 09/112,265 11/19/02
6,483,546 09/378,065 11/19/02
6,483,549 10/040,199 11/19/02
6,483,551 09/039,387 11/19/02
6,483,552 09/324,520 11/19/02
6,483,562 09/526,278 11/19/02
6,483,563 09/973,243 11/19/02
6,483,571 09/693,785 11/19/02
6,483,574 09/493,413 11/19/02
6,483,578 09/592,534 11/19/02
6,483,581 09/446,673 11/19/02
6,483,585 09/633,036 11/19/02
6,483,589 09/611,260 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 14 |
6,483,593 09/371,207 11/19/02
6,483,600 09/258,837 11/19/02
6,483,601 09/332,160 11/19/02
6,483,603 09/477,622 11/19/02
6,483,604 09/258,993 11/19/02
6,483,610 09/391,920 11/19/02
6,483,613 09/762,339 11/19/02
6,483,624 09/455,562 11/19/02
6,483,625 09/998,694 11/19/02
6,483,630 09/847,440 11/19/02
6,483,631 09/900,137 11/19/02
6,483,640 08/847,171 11/19/02
6,483,642 09/700,263 11/19/02
6,483,652 09/931,975 11/19/02
6,483,654 09/948,760 11/19/02
6,483,655 09/452,164 11/19/02
6,483,656 09/549,843 11/19/02
6,483,663 09/354,467 11/19/02
6,483,664 09/409,430 11/19/02
6,483,665 09/455,319 11/19/02
6,483,670 09/614,839 11/19/02
6,483,673 09/085,101 11/19/02
6,483,676 09/930,240 11/19/02
6,483,677 09/931,897 11/19/02
6,483,681 09/485,964 11/19/02
6,483,685 09/577,837 11/19/02
6,483,686 09/717,345 11/19/02
6,483,695 08/671,114 11/19/02
6,483,698 09/451,199 11/19/02
6,483,700 09/932,035 11/19/02
6,483,703 09/799,536 11/19/02
6,483,704 09/823,625 11/19/02
6,483,712 09/528,330 11/19/02
6,483,714 09/511,517 11/19/02
6,483,717 09/562,792 11/19/02
6,483,719 09/531,745 11/19/02
6,483,727 09/987,115 11/19/02
6,483,738 09/987,739 11/19/02
6,483,740 09/883,660 11/19/02
6,483,745 09/938,139 11/19/02
6,483,748 09/729,415 11/19/02
6,483,755 09/903,094 11/19/02
6,483,758 09/387,475 11/19/02
6,483,759 09/607,788 11/19/02
6,483,760 09/834,498 11/19/02
6,483,765 09/750,219 11/19/02
6,483,771 09/875,001 11/19/02
6,483,772 09/951,230 11/19/02
6,483,774 09/805,092 11/19/02
6,483,779 09/391,588 11/19/02
6,483,785 09/685,829 11/19/02
6,483,793 09/354,247 11/19/02
6,483,796 09/704,560 11/19/02
6,483,799 09/490,024 11/19/02
6,483,808 09/300,883 11/19/02
6,483,814 09/383,105 11/19/02
6,483,825 09/236,962 11/19/02
6,483,830 09/254,512 11/19/02
6,483,832 09/060,292 11/19/02
6,483,862 09/209,528 11/19/02
6,483,869 09/164,144 11/19/02
6,483,875 08/879,308 11/19/02
6,483,881 09/203,786 11/19/02
6,483,902 09/302,588 11/19/02
6,483,904 09/067,134 11/19/02
6,483,934 09/842,860 11/19/02
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 15 |
6,483,952 09/855,557 11/19/02
6,483,953 09/309,444 11/19/02
6,483,956 09/637,480 11/19/02
6,483,959 09/622,698 11/19/02
6,483,966 09/727,845 11/19/02
6,483,971 09/810,221 11/19/02
6,483,982 09/629,176 11/19/02
6,483,983 09/225,555 11/19/02
6,483,985 09/190,277 11/19/02
6,483,990 09/571,793 11/19/02
6,483,994 09/790,658 11/19/02
6,483,995 09/781,992 11/19/02
6,483,996 09/824,891 11/19/02
6,483,997 09/625,056 11/19/02
6,483,998 09/878,422 11/19/02
6,484,002 09/877,777 11/19/02
6,484,007 09/643,423 11/19/02
6,484,008 09/746,937 11/19/02
6,484,011 09/347,554 11/19/02
6,484,019 09/420,446 11/19/02
6,484,042 09/382,882 11/19/02
6,484,052 09/281,371 11/19/02
6,484,056 09/803,271 11/19/02
6,484,059 09/799,709 11/19/02
6,484,076 09/765,634 11/19/02
6,484,080 09/753,186 11/19/02
6,484,084 09/763,924 11/19/02
6,484,090 09/674,940 11/19/02
6,484,092 09/818,993 11/19/02
6,484,098 10/138,425 11/19/02
6,484,099 09/617,542 11/19/02
6,484,100 09/381,191 11/19/02
6,484,101 09/640,135 11/19/02
6,484,111 09/355,468 11/19/02
6,484,112 09/600,649 11/19/02
6,484,116 09/574,727 11/19/02
6,484,117 09/548,884 11/19/02
6,484,130 09/725,742 11/19/02
6,484,132 09/520,693 11/19/02
6,484,133 09/539,961 11/19/02
6,484,135 09/386,012 11/19/02
6,484,153 08/923,524 11/19/02
6,484,157 09/416,459 11/19/02
6,484,167 08/968,472 11/19/02
6,484,178 09/475,476 11/19/02
6,484,189 08/727,170 11/19/02
6,484,191 09/346,599 11/19/02
6,484,199 10/104,792 11/19/02
6,484,213 09/150,105 11/19/02
6,484,222 09/455,048 11/19/02
6,484,235 09/391,826 11/19/02
6,484,236 09/985,785 11/19/02
6,484,238 09/467,352 11/19/02
6,484,242 09/809,217 11/19/02
6,484,249 09/731,992 11/19/02
6,484,253 09/355,024 11/19/02
6,484,279 10/057,635 11/19/02
6,484,284 09/842,875 11/19/02
6,484,291 09/559,324 11/19/02
6,484,301 09/865,268 11/19/02
6,484,303 09/900,026 11/19/02
6,484,309 09/168,592 11/19/02
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON November 14, 2014
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 16 |
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
7,134,147 11/214,288 11/14/06
7,134,148 10/971,103 11/14/06
7,134,150 10/721,515 11/14/06
7,134,158 11/194,355 11/14/06
7,134,159 10/756,613 11/14/06
7,134,165 10/895,556 11/14/06
7,134,174 11/118,300 11/14/06
7,134,180 11/228,679 11/14/06
7,134,181 10/513,857 11/14/06
7,134,182 10/715,020 11/14/06
7,134,184 10/706,838 11/14/06
7,134,186 11/036,922 11/14/06
7,134,197 10/739,547 11/14/06
7,134,213 11/044,823 11/14/06
7,134,214 11/131,365 11/14/06
7,134,218 11/115,744 11/14/06
7,134,226 10/943,312 11/14/06
7,134,229 10/759,189 11/14/06
7,134,232 11/014,061 11/14/06
7,134,235 10/367,637 11/14/06
7,134,237 10/631,691 11/14/06
7,134,243 10/178,994 11/14/06
7,134,263 11/299,093 11/14/06
7,134,264 11/076,894 11/14/06
7,134,268 11/280,498 11/14/06
7,134,272 10/367,954 11/14/06
7,134,284 10/931,578 11/14/06
7,134,295 10/504,877 11/14/06
7,134,312 10/713,168 11/14/06
7,134,313 11/027,494 11/14/06
7,134,323 11/041,317 11/14/06
7,134,328 11/270,620 11/14/06
7,134,361 10/185,368 11/14/06
7,134,363 11/106,126 11/14/06
7,134,374 10/969,608 11/14/06
7,134,387 10/088,338 11/14/06
7,134,388 10/944,747 11/14/06
7,134,389 10/891,071 11/14/06
7,134,393 10/889,031 11/14/06
7,134,394 11/062,653 11/14/06
7,134,395 10/760,904 11/14/06
7,134,396 10/728,344 11/14/06
7,134,400 11/405,253 11/14/06
7,134,404 10/762,631 11/14/06
7,134,405 10/479,313 11/14/06
7,134,408 10/488,446 11/14/06
7,134,421 11/189,128 11/14/06
7,134,430 11/010,195 11/14/06
7,134,437 10/104,250 11/14/06
7,134,439 11/012,488 11/14/06
7,134,445 10/531,947 11/14/06
7,134,450 11/072,341 11/14/06
7,134,459 10/860,113 11/14/06
7,134,470 10/868,253 11/14/06
7,134,473 10/943,302 11/14/06
7,134,485 10/892,222 11/14/06
7,134,489 10/489,595 11/14/06
7,134,491 10/304,437 11/14/06
7,134,495 11/025,328 11/14/06
7,134,501 10/776,095 11/14/06
7,134,503 11/325,741 11/14/06
7,134,512 10/619,364 11/14/06
7,134,530 11/298,686 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 17 |
7,134,546 10/870,337 11/14/06
7,134,559 10/812,899 11/14/06
7,134,561 10/991,462 11/14/06
7,134,564 10/686,846 11/14/06
7,134,569 11/076,076 11/14/06
7,134,582 10/478,737 11/14/06
7,134,584 10/941,557 11/14/06
7,134,590 10/802,065 11/14/06
7,134,598 10/853,782 11/14/06
7,134,601 10/971,051 11/14/06
7,134,602 10/854,234 11/14/06
7,134,606 11/074,539 11/14/06
7,134,608 11/228,435 11/14/06
7,134,619 10/771,336 11/14/06
7,134,621 10/483,257 11/14/06
7,134,624 10/739,325 11/14/06
7,134,626 11/012,221 11/14/06
7,134,627 10/970,000 11/14/06
7,134,632 11/193,082 11/14/06
7,134,633 10/772,909 11/14/06
7,134,638 11/041,060 11/14/06
7,134,645 10/358,911 11/14/06
7,134,651 11/243,070 11/14/06
7,134,663 11/129,947 11/14/06
7,134,672 10/625,828 11/14/06
7,134,684 10/857,823 11/14/06
7,134,685 10/758,910 11/14/06
7,134,687 10/365,129 11/14/06
7,134,690 10/762,709 11/14/06
7,134,691 10/150,565 11/14/06
7,134,692 10/733,249 11/14/06
7,134,698 10/961,363 11/14/06
7,134,701 10/748,574 11/14/06
7,134,710 10/910,645 11/14/06
7,134,712 10/891,409 11/14/06
7,134,713 11/125,729 11/14/06
7,134,720 11/069,558 11/14/06
7,134,735 10/613,288 11/14/06
7,134,740 10/962,415 11/14/06
7,134,743 10/773,192 11/14/06
7,134,753 11/188,069 11/14/06
7,134,756 10/838,283 11/14/06
7,134,772 11/017,234 11/14/06
7,134,773 10/811,602 11/14/06
7,134,774 11/058,602 11/14/06
7,134,778 10/910,429 11/14/06
7,134,784 10/750,511 11/14/06
7,134,794 10/895,115 11/14/06
7,134,795 10/855,943 11/14/06
7,134,802 10/828,604 11/14/06
7,134,816 11/109,803 11/14/06
7,134,821 10/696,958 11/14/06
7,134,829 10/796,619 11/14/06
7,134,831 09/896,987 11/14/06
7,134,835 10/857,227 11/14/06
7,134,840 10/656,080 11/14/06
7,134,858 10/786,884 11/14/06
7,134,860 10/813,206 11/14/06
7,134,861 10/314,752 11/14/06
7,134,869 10/902,648 11/14/06
7,134,871 10/665,640 11/14/06
7,134,873 10/819,301 11/14/06
7,134,876 10/812,721 11/14/06
7,134,877 10/316,029 11/14/06
7,134,878 10/950,320 11/14/06
7,134,881 11/393,649 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 18 |
7,134,885 11/185,132 11/14/06
7,134,888 11/148,128 11/14/06
7,134,890 11/145,075 11/14/06
7,134,892 11/260,292 11/14/06
7,134,893 11/386,723 11/14/06
7,134,895 11/218,698 11/14/06
7,134,896 11/239,161 11/14/06
7,134,897 11/217,325 11/14/06
7,134,900 11/401,082 11/14/06
7,134,905 11/095,645 11/14/06
7,134,906 11/255,503 11/14/06
7,134,907 11/173,714 11/14/06
7,134,916 11/001,854 11/14/06
7,134,917 10/982,523 11/14/06
7,134,918 11/148,531 11/14/06
7,134,920 11/287,265 11/14/06
7,134,926 11/022,506 11/14/06
7,134,927 11/198,766 11/14/06
7,134,932 10/750,729 11/14/06
7,134,935 11/375,904 11/14/06
7,134,944 11/101,967 11/14/06
7,134,948 11/316,413 11/14/06
7,134,949 11/107,869 11/14/06
7,134,956 10/618,523 11/14/06
7,134,966 10/657,293 11/14/06
7,134,972 10/863,147 11/14/06
7,134,978 10/629,212 11/14/06
7,134,980 11/198,326 11/14/06
7,134,981 11/003,672 11/14/06
7,134,983 11/007,714 11/14/06
7,134,986 10/370,502 11/14/06
7,134,987 10/841,043 11/14/06
7,135,004 10/930,818 11/14/06
7,135,005 10/204,077 11/14/06
7,135,011 10/729,757 11/14/06
7,135,014 10/277,416 11/14/06
7,135,022 10/478,717 11/14/06
7,135,026 10/627,589 11/14/06
7,135,028 10/316,044 11/14/06
7,135,032 10/235,859 11/14/06
7,135,035 10/446,399 11/14/06
7,135,036 10/849,723 11/14/06
7,135,041 10/650,846 11/14/06
7,135,044 10/796,168 11/14/06
7,135,051 10/861,042 11/14/06
7,135,057 10/417,688 11/14/06
7,135,058 11/200,365 11/14/06
7,135,063 10/945,220 11/14/06
7,135,065 11/179,985 11/14/06
7,135,073 09/873,041 11/14/06
7,135,076 10/633,156 11/14/06
7,135,079 10/496,024 11/14/06
7,135,080 10/628,612 11/14/06
7,135,081 10/730,999 11/14/06
7,135,087 10/770,735 11/14/06
7,135,088 10/760,306 11/14/06
7,135,090 10/691,617 11/14/06
7,135,092 10/473,275 11/14/06
7,135,099 10/282,220 11/14/06
7,135,100 10/019,220 11/14/06
7,135,110 11/071,053 11/14/06
7,135,116 10/419,848 11/14/06
7,135,120 10/453,938 11/14/06
7,135,121 10/754,712 11/14/06
7,135,122 10/814,885 11/14/06
7,135,127 10/149,349 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 19 |
7,135,129 10/689,584 11/14/06
7,135,130 10/775,862 11/14/06
7,135,131 10/689,618 11/14/06
7,135,133 09/833,833 11/14/06
7,135,134 10/777,783 11/14/06
7,135,139 10/759,430 11/14/06
7,135,146 10/237,916 11/14/06
7,135,151 09/487,043 11/14/06
7,135,154 10/006,880 11/14/06
7,135,158 10/166,386 11/14/06
7,135,161 10/656,717 11/14/06
7,135,167 10/290,372 11/14/06
7,135,173 10/325,664 11/14/06
7,135,177 09/797,544 11/14/06
7,135,178 10/176,460 11/14/06
7,135,179 11/181,030 11/14/06
7,135,186 09/874,140 11/14/06
7,135,187 10/355,330 11/14/06
7,135,191 09/516,078 11/14/06
7,135,193 11/020,462 11/14/06
7,135,199 10/967,434 11/14/06
7,135,204 10/758,698 11/14/06
7,135,205 10/506,412 11/14/06
7,135,209 10/478,279 11/14/06
7,135,213 10/632,070 11/14/06
7,135,214 09/926,109 11/14/06
7,135,218 10/293,311 11/14/06
7,135,223 10/694,753 11/14/06
7,135,230 10/632,861 11/14/06
7,135,234 10/851,268 11/14/06
7,135,241 10/155,390 11/14/06
7,135,246 10/623,530 11/14/06
7,135,253 10/287,182 11/14/06
7,135,260 10/751,306 11/14/06
7,135,265 10/457,020 11/14/06
7,135,268 10/440,201 11/14/06
7,135,271 10/928,107 11/14/06
7,135,272 10/459,593 11/14/06
7,135,274 10/704,551 11/14/06
7,135,276 10/958,546 11/14/06
7,135,279 10/223,103 11/14/06
7,135,281 10/008,524 11/14/06
7,135,282 10/110,511 11/14/06
7,135,288 10/256,549 11/14/06
7,135,294 10/658,169 11/14/06
7,135,295 09/889,936 11/14/06
7,135,298 10/401,058 11/14/06
7,135,303 10/220,443 11/14/06
7,135,310 10/167,634 11/14/06
7,135,316 10/717,381 11/14/06
7,135,317 09/809,617 11/14/06
7,135,318 10/608,533 11/14/06
7,135,324 10/656,868 11/14/06
7,135,331 11/048,918 11/14/06
7,135,345 10/919,676 11/14/06
7,135,354 10/763,858 11/14/06
7,135,371 10/747,602 11/14/06
7,135,374 10/746,381 11/14/06
7,135,375 11/053,721 11/14/06
7,135,384 10/787,207 11/14/06
7,135,386 10/394,024 11/14/06
7,135,413 10/727,962 11/14/06
7,135,421 10/163,481 11/14/06
7,135,423 10/142,313 11/14/06
7,135,424 10/642,005 11/14/06
7,135,429 10/155,446 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 20 |
7,135,431 10/479,256 11/14/06
7,135,458 09/716,356 11/14/06
7,135,461 10/048,305 11/14/06
7,135,475 10/459,944 11/14/06
7,135,476 10/916,583 11/14/06
7,135,480 10/733,229 11/14/06
7,135,481 11/067,074 11/14/06
7,135,485 10/256,437 11/14/06
7,135,486 10/110,284 11/14/06
7,135,487 10/447,619 11/14/06
7,135,490 10/676,118 11/14/06
7,135,492 10/282,511 11/14/06
7,135,497 09/611,652 11/14/06
7,135,501 10/496,592 11/14/06
7,135,503 10/130,496 11/14/06
7,135,508 10/371,214 11/14/06
7,135,513 10/506,656 11/14/06
7,135,517 11/025,081 11/14/06
7,135,523 10/799,845 11/14/06
7,135,532 10/958,272 11/14/06
7,135,534 10/625,894 11/14/06
7,135,537 10/833,786 11/14/06
7,135,540 10/359,600 11/14/06
7,135,545 10/835,433 11/14/06
7,135,546 10/088,085 11/14/06
7,135,549 10/120,901 11/14/06
7,135,550 10/234,985 11/14/06
7,135,551 10/263,766 11/14/06
7,135,554 10/998,861 11/14/06
7,135,556 10/736,769 11/14/06
7,135,560 11/027,843 11/14/06
7,135,562 10/099,663 11/14/06
7,135,567 11/083,216 11/14/06
7,135,568 10/660,794 11/14/06
7,135,574 11/056,406 11/14/06
7,135,578 10/798,617 11/14/06
7,135,597 10/529,144 11/14/06
7,135,600 10/467,733 11/14/06
7,135,607 10/009,950 11/14/06
7,135,609 10/143,364 11/14/06
7,135,611 10/755,594 11/14/06
7,135,612 10/934,250 11/14/06
7,135,619 10/009,876 11/14/06
7,135,623 10/070,666 11/14/06
7,135,624 10/221,074 11/14/06
7,135,626 11/151,532 11/14/06
7,135,647 11/226,239 11/14/06
7,135,648 10/523,090 11/14/06
7,135,653 10/731,358 11/14/06
7,135,667 11/188,243 11/14/06
7,135,669 11/090,162 11/14/06
7,135,672 11/017,543 11/14/06
7,135,679 11/005,671 11/14/06
7,135,684 11/116,167 11/14/06
7,135,688 10/857,207 11/14/06
7,135,690 10/848,360 11/14/06
7,135,695 10/652,481 11/14/06
7,135,707 09/389,393 11/14/06
7,135,717 10/737,261 11/14/06
7,135,730 10/759,076 11/14/06
7,135,735 10/791,749 11/14/06
7,135,737 11/023,426 11/14/06
7,135,739 10/998,943 11/14/06
7,135,745 10/238,572 11/14/06
7,135,764 10/909,767 11/14/06
7,135,777 10/430,670 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 21 |
7,135,782 10/289,395 11/14/06
7,135,786 11/307,533 11/14/06
7,135,787 10/774,185 11/14/06
7,135,792 11/127,469 11/14/06
7,135,794 10/640,695 11/14/06
7,135,804 11/334,652 11/14/06
7,135,805 10/819,814 11/14/06
7,135,806 10/286,071 11/14/06
7,135,810 10/921,442 11/14/06
7,135,823 10/954,206 11/14/06
7,135,825 10/926,084 11/14/06
7,135,829 11/200,834 11/14/06
7,135,838 10/612,100 11/14/06
7,135,839 10/506,295 11/14/06
7,135,863 10/955,635 11/14/06
7,135,865 11/059,372 11/14/06
7,135,867 11/246,518 11/14/06
7,135,871 11/304,285 11/14/06
7,135,873 10/656,032 11/14/06
7,135,879 10/791,130 11/14/06
7,135,883 11/311,269 11/14/06
7,135,892 11/089,577 11/14/06
7,135,896 11/093,032 11/14/06
7,135,913 10/964,016 11/14/06
7,135,922 11/030,318 11/14/06
7,135,932 10/615,725 11/14/06
7,135,935 10/841,866 11/14/06
7,135,937 10/950,811 11/14/06
7,135,942 10/694,952 11/14/06
7,135,946 11/049,841 11/14/06
7,135,953 10/477,700 11/14/06
7,135,957 11/256,349 11/14/06
7,135,968 10/371,828 11/14/06
7,135,971 10/755,484 11/14/06
7,135,973 11/048,336 11/14/06
7,135,984 10/959,727 11/14/06
7,136,013 10/625,642 11/14/06
7,136,018 10/519,361 11/14/06
7,136,019 10/722,650 11/14/06
7,136,024 11/030,491 11/14/06
7,136,026 11/051,450 11/14/06
7,136,027 11/127,089 11/14/06
7,136,032 10/205,197 11/14/06
7,136,033 10/612,943 11/14/06
7,136,050 10/458,526 11/14/06
7,136,051 10/812,223 11/14/06
7,136,053 10/315,739 11/14/06
7,136,055 10/453,549 11/14/06
7,136,064 10/155,892 11/14/06
7,136,074 10/909,570 11/14/06
7,136,080 09/653,286 11/14/06
7,136,083 09/908,164 11/14/06
7,136,096 09/265,070 11/14/06
7,136,099 10/007,794 11/14/06
7,136,102 09/865,515 11/14/06
7,136,134 10/629,185 11/14/06
7,136,145 10/630,792 11/14/06
7,136,146 10/841,460 11/14/06
7,136,148 11/019,522 11/14/06
7,136,151 10/901,188 11/14/06
7,136,155 10/837,972 11/14/06
7,136,158 10/865,651 11/14/06
7,136,160 11/044,781 11/14/06
7,136,166 10/827,327 11/14/06
7,136,175 10/166,967 11/14/06
7,136,181 10/107,418 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 22 |
7,136,183 10/636,251 11/14/06
7,136,186 10/920,230 11/14/06
7,136,189 10/040,546 11/14/06
7,136,191 10/178,099 11/14/06
7,136,192 10/862,230 11/14/06
7,136,198 10/659,023 11/14/06
7,136,199 10/039,941 11/14/06
7,136,206 11/004,319 11/14/06
7,136,208 11/258,198 11/14/06
7,136,209 10/969,649 11/14/06
7,136,235 10/495,626 11/14/06
7,136,245 10/897,759 11/14/06
7,136,246 10/660,898 11/14/06
7,136,252 11/113,199 11/14/06
7,136,253 10/858,847 11/14/06
7,136,281 11/018,279 11/14/06
7,136,283 10/459,172 11/14/06
7,136,284 10/500,641 11/14/06
7,136,286 11/030,975 11/14/06
7,136,288 10/745,167 11/14/06
7,136,291 10/848,291 11/14/06
7,136,306 10/680,878 11/14/06
7,136,314 11/008,273 11/14/06
7,136,328 10/419,845 11/14/06
7,136,329 10/309,308 11/14/06
7,136,331 10/705,009 11/14/06
7,136,337 10/830,545 11/14/06
7,136,340 10/720,179 11/14/06
7,136,342 10/787,592 11/14/06
7,136,347 10/803,442 11/14/06
7,136,351 09/873,454 11/14/06
7,136,356 09/809,215 11/14/06
7,136,358 09/894,472 11/14/06
7,136,360 09/917,111 11/14/06
7,136,381 09/883,213 11/14/06
7,136,386 09/907,606 11/14/06
7,136,400 10/177,222 11/14/06
7,136,409 10/812,317 11/14/06
7,136,414 10/941,476 11/14/06
7,136,418 09/938,119 11/14/06
7,136,420 10/213,500 11/14/06
7,136,426 10/020,164 11/14/06
7,136,427 10/347,292 11/14/06
7,136,429 10/267,438 11/14/06
7,136,447 10/366,367 11/14/06
7,136,455 10/904,286 11/14/06
7,136,464 09/921,952 11/14/06
7,136,466 10/159,306 11/14/06
7,136,468 10/347,833 11/14/06
7,136,488 10/059,217 11/14/06
7,136,492 10/193,613 11/14/06
7,136,493 09/727,903 11/14/06
7,136,495 10/089,884 11/14/06
7,136,500 10/634,552 11/14/06
7,136,502 11/051,442 11/14/06
7,136,503 11/074,520 11/14/06
7,136,506 10/376,283 11/14/06
7,136,508 09/984,991 11/14/06
7,136,518 10/418,902 11/14/06
7,136,526 10/020,249 11/14/06
7,136,527 10/820,886 11/14/06
7,136,531 10/409,154 11/14/06
7,136,537 10/144,999 11/14/06
7,136,542 10/354,165 11/14/06
7,136,548 10/311,398 11/14/06
7,136,551 11/069,870 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 23 |
7,136,553 11/166,327 11/14/06
7,136,560 10/524,831 11/14/06
7,136,566 10/988,792 11/14/06
7,136,571 09/686,793 11/14/06
7,136,579 10/082,166 11/14/06
7,136,581 10/901,734 11/14/06
7,136,588 09/746,822 11/14/06
7,136,599 10/981,646 11/14/06
7,136,604 11/044,062 11/14/06
7,136,624 10/358,341 11/14/06
7,136,630 09/747,392 11/14/06
7,136,660 10/518,598 11/14/06
7,136,683 10/806,987 11/14/06
7,136,686 10/693,920 11/14/06
7,136,688 10/690,405 11/14/06
7,136,694 10/815,290 11/14/06
7,136,696 10/138,987 11/14/06
7,136,703 10/123,944 11/14/06
7,136,721 11/086,663 11/14/06
7,136,722 10/360,873 11/14/06
7,136,749 10/817,951 11/14/06
7,136,756 10/979,902 11/14/06
7,136,759 10/323,387 11/14/06
7,136,763 10/463,110 11/14/06
7,136,764 11/159,343 11/14/06
7,136,780 10/879,055 11/14/06
7,136,782 11/125,810 11/14/06
7,136,784 09/765,639 11/14/06
7,136,805 10/166,377 11/14/06
7,136,824 09/760,730 11/14/06
7,136,831 10/126,526 11/14/06
7,136,849 10/487,971 11/14/06
7,136,853 08/708,981 11/14/06
7,136,858 10/211,763 11/14/06
7,136,876 10/379,003 11/14/06
7,136,878 11/255,040 11/14/06
7,136,897 09/643,443 11/14/06
7,136,899 09/734,305 11/14/06
7,136,902 10/155,303 11/14/06
7,136,930 09/435,602 11/14/06
7,136,947 09/330,231 11/14/06
7,136,949 11/076,867 11/14/06
7,136,962 10/693,180 11/14/06
7,136,970 10/740,443 11/14/06
7,136,979 10/806,695 11/14/06
7,136,986 10/727,311 11/14/06
7,136,989 10/254,543 11/14/06
7,137,007 09/794,074 11/14/06
7,137,019 10/427,009 11/14/06
7,137,029 10/625,565 11/14/06
7,137,032 11/167,688 11/14/06
7,137,035 10/449,012 11/14/06
7,137,036 10/259,772 11/14/06
7,137,037 10/397,299 11/14/06
7,137,046 10/638,370 11/14/06
7,137,050 10/712,150 11/14/06
7,137,051 10/278,685 11/14/06
7,137,059 10/335,702 11/14/06
7,137,064 10/066,985 11/14/06
7,137,065 09/513,058 11/14/06
7,137,066 09/827,993 11/14/06
7,137,068 09/052,278 11/14/06
7,137,070 10/185,117 11/14/06
7,137,075 10/949,364 11/14/06
7,137,080 10/646,425 11/14/06
7,137,088 10/838,905 11/14/06
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 24 |
7,137,105 09/813,522 11/14/06
7,137,109 10/321,340 11/14/06
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON November 16, 2014
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
7,832,026 11/860,731 11/16/10
7,832,028 11/663,740 11/16/10
7,832,030 11/840,902 11/16/10
7,832,043 12/461,631 11/16/10
7,832,056 11/937,189 11/16/10
7,832,058 12/118,756 11/16/10
7,832,069 11/790,732 11/16/10
7,832,071 11/143,365 11/16/10
7,832,076 11/999,885 11/16/10
7,832,081 12/108,543 11/16/10
7,832,083 11/621,677 11/16/10
7,832,086 11/441,089 11/16/10
7,832,090 12/660,424 11/16/10
7,832,092 12/041,457 11/16/10
7,832,096 11/774,723 11/16/10
7,832,102 11/693,233 11/16/10
7,832,104 11/577,826 11/16/10
7,832,106 11/614,219 11/16/10
7,832,107 12/507,321 11/16/10
7,832,115 12/647,441 11/16/10
7,832,121 11/715,770 11/16/10
7,832,124 11/616,668 11/16/10
7,832,125 12/346,359 11/16/10
7,832,132 12/117,013 11/16/10
7,832,136 12/163,998 11/16/10
7,832,140 10/445,584 11/16/10
7,832,146 12/134,470 11/16/10
7,832,149 11/860,796 11/16/10
7,832,161 12/193,061 11/16/10
7,832,179 11/312,942 11/16/10
7,832,183 12/466,043 11/16/10
7,832,210 10/540,373 11/16/10
7,832,217 12/387,776 11/16/10
7,832,225 11/951,917 11/16/10
7,832,249 12/490,629 11/16/10
7,832,253 12/397,010 11/16/10
7,832,255 12/001,217 11/16/10
7,832,265 12/316,936 11/16/10
7,832,266 12/287,247 11/16/10
7,832,291 12/460,288 11/16/10
7,832,304 11/470,050 11/16/10
7,832,307 11/920,291 11/16/10
7,832,309 12/191,455 11/16/10
7,832,319 12/009,804 11/16/10
7,832,333 12/407,152 11/16/10
7,832,334 11/376,013 11/16/10
7,832,341 12/386,756 11/16/10
7,832,349 12/126,297 11/16/10
7,832,358 12/082,929 11/16/10
7,832,361 12/060,729 11/16/10
7,832,379 11/576,640 11/16/10
7,832,390 12/105,250 11/16/10
7,832,392 11/961,238 11/16/10
7,832,393 11/825,086 11/16/10
7,832,394 11/021,743 11/16/10
7,832,406 11/191,056 11/16/10
7,832,407 11/295,281 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 25 |
7,832,409 11/875,413 11/16/10
7,832,411 10/547,649 11/16/10
7,832,416 11/539,936 11/16/10
7,832,424 11/909,007 11/16/10
7,832,435 12/436,513 11/16/10
7,832,443 12/144,564 11/16/10
7,832,447 12/182,312 11/16/10
7,832,450 12/176,803 11/16/10
7,832,452 11/410,089 11/16/10
7,832,465 10/702,241 11/16/10
7,832,467 11/214,473 11/16/10
7,832,469 11/380,687 11/16/10
7,832,470 12/072,601 11/16/10
7,832,474 11/690,888 11/16/10
7,832,478 11/936,384 11/16/10
7,832,515 11/795,331 11/16/10
7,832,517 12/254,011 11/16/10
7,832,527 12/468,890 11/16/10
7,832,530 11/988,527 11/16/10
7,832,532 10/688,447 11/16/10
7,832,542 11/910,954 11/16/10
7,832,543 11/630,359 11/16/10
7,832,544 12/115,860 11/16/10
7,832,546 12/298,039 11/16/10
7,832,554 12/021,450 11/16/10
7,832,564 12/296,755 11/16/10
7,832,569 11/708,969 11/16/10
7,832,574 12/710,141 11/16/10
7,832,581 10/548,784 11/16/10
7,832,589 10/581,272 11/16/10
7,832,590 11/791,778 11/16/10
7,832,592 11/513,448 11/16/10
7,832,597 11/842,640 11/16/10
7,832,606 11/879,701 11/16/10
7,832,607 11/923,443 11/16/10
7,832,622 11/657,990 11/16/10
7,832,624 12/094,487 11/16/10
7,832,626 10/815,630 11/16/10
7,832,630 11/756,625 11/16/10
7,832,637 11/825,411 11/16/10
7,832,639 11/642,282 11/16/10
7,832,640 12/363,778 11/16/10
7,832,643 11/980,081 11/16/10
7,832,650 11/630,260 11/16/10
7,832,651 10/527,791 11/16/10
7,832,654 12/207,576 11/16/10
7,832,660 10/951,387 11/16/10
7,832,663 11/518,086 11/16/10
7,832,676 10/581,621 11/16/10
7,832,677 11/571,373 11/16/10
7,832,680 12/229,806 11/16/10
7,832,682 11/922,585 11/16/10
7,832,690 12/030,077 11/16/10
7,832,698 11/785,852 11/16/10
7,832,709 11/773,898 11/16/10
7,832,712 12/319,724 11/16/10
7,832,717 12/061,058 11/16/10
7,832,729 11/466,103 11/16/10
7,832,733 12/474,596 11/16/10
7,832,750 12/295,846 11/16/10
7,832,752 12/012,305 11/16/10
7,832,755 11/495,161 11/16/10
7,832,761 11/916,953 11/16/10
7,832,762 11/421,554 11/16/10
7,832,763 12/005,856 11/16/10
7,832,766 12/378,071 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 26 |
7,832,773 11/522,607 11/16/10
7,832,774 10/460,938 11/16/10
7,832,779 12/378,875 11/16/10
7,832,782 12/580,801 11/16/10
7,832,783 12/315,051 11/16/10
7,832,785 10/563,997 11/16/10
7,832,786 12/174,952 11/16/10
7,832,790 12/264,041 11/16/10
7,832,794 12/371,985 11/16/10
7,832,797 11/728,997 11/16/10
7,832,800 12/119,223 11/16/10
7,832,806 11/494,580 11/16/10
7,832,810 11/645,487 11/16/10
7,832,812 12/331,385 11/16/10
7,832,816 11/988,957 11/16/10
7,832,821 11/720,803 11/16/10
7,832,822 11/951,892 11/16/10
7,832,826 11/846,785 11/16/10
7,832,837 11/944,451 11/16/10
7,832,844 12/246,336 11/16/10
7,832,855 12/390,459 11/16/10
7,832,856 11/872,305 11/16/10
7,832,857 12/229,073 11/16/10
7,832,861 12/647,720 11/16/10
7,832,881 12/453,093 11/16/10
7,832,885 12/026,040 11/16/10
7,832,887 12/136,523 11/16/10
7,832,888 12/132,446 11/16/10
7,832,890 11/863,340 11/16/10
7,832,892 12/255,658 11/16/10
7,832,897 12/110,344 11/16/10
7,832,899 12/195,433 11/16/10
7,832,900 12/170,647 11/16/10
7,832,909 12/247,357 11/16/10
7,832,911 12/110,967 11/16/10
7,832,915 12/268,757 11/16/10
7,832,916 11/629,514 11/16/10
7,832,935 11/735,022 11/16/10
7,832,951 11/703,181 11/16/10
7,832,953 12/272,762 11/16/10
7,832,965 11/640,812 11/16/10
7,832,969 11/374,538 11/16/10
7,832,970 12/265,874 11/16/10
7,832,985 11/775,975 11/16/10
7,832,999 11/280,267 11/16/10
7,833,007 12/337,738 11/16/10
7,833,015 11/691,052 11/16/10
7,833,032 12/562,044 11/16/10
7,833,033 12/148,088 11/16/10
7,833,035 12/228,554 11/16/10
7,833,040 12/536,304 11/16/10
7,833,042 12/309,833 11/16/10
7,833,043 11/989,738 11/16/10
7,833,046 12/385,492 11/16/10
7,833,048 12/383,512 11/16/10
7,833,049 12/542,688 11/16/10
7,833,052 12/295,353 11/16/10
7,833,057 12/480,035 11/16/10
7,833,063 11/992,281 11/16/10
7,833,067 12/581,146 11/16/10
7,833,070 12/294,204 11/16/10
7,833,079 11/937,631 11/16/10
7,833,083 12/192,615 11/16/10
7,833,105 11/794,863 11/16/10
7,833,106 12/010,982 11/16/10
7,833,107 12/098,520 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 27 |
7,833,117 12/376,213 11/16/10
7,833,121 12/177,616 11/16/10
7,833,122 12/177,627 11/16/10
7,833,124 11/949,619 11/16/10
7,833,132 12/354,611 11/16/10
7,833,137 12/389,064 11/16/10
7,833,141 12/115,276 11/16/10
7,833,143 12/592,610 11/16/10
7,833,145 12/608,594 11/16/10
7,833,161 11/503,017 11/16/10
7,833,165 12/064,002 11/16/10
7,833,167 11/725,549 11/16/10
7,833,170 10/538,813 11/16/10
7,833,202 10/222,910 11/16/10
7,833,215 11/551,529 11/16/10
7,833,232 11/703,044 11/16/10
7,833,246 10/685,139 11/16/10
7,833,247 10/560,901 11/16/10
7,833,258 11/578,954 11/16/10
7,833,263 11/096,686 11/16/10
7,833,264 11/368,769 11/16/10
7,833,266 11/946,632 11/16/10
7,833,285 11/790,418 11/16/10
7,833,286 12/287,414 11/16/10
7,833,293 12/721,104 11/16/10
7,833,302 12/167,197 11/16/10
7,833,303 11/890,817 11/16/10
7,833,321 11/896,403 11/16/10
7,833,322 11/679,606 11/16/10
7,833,328 12/555,874 11/16/10
7,833,340 11/578,937 11/16/10
7,833,342 11/476,257 11/16/10
7,833,343 12/513,442 11/16/10
7,833,351 11/426,563 11/16/10
7,833,355 11/756,076 11/16/10
7,833,356 10/543,002 11/16/10
7,833,364 12/276,451 11/16/10
7,833,366 11/998,982 11/16/10
7,833,367 11/907,429 11/16/10
7,833,378 11/923,892 11/16/10
7,833,380 12/013,851 11/16/10
7,833,386 12/029,753 11/16/10
7,833,394 12/318,913 11/16/10
7,833,395 10/586,668 11/16/10
7,833,397 11/498,982 11/16/10
7,833,403 11/873,327 11/16/10
7,833,414 12/550,169 11/16/10
7,833,416 12/833,700 11/16/10
7,833,417 12/194,803 11/16/10
7,833,418 12/249,387 11/16/10
7,833,425 11/843,401 11/16/10
7,833,431 11/561,071 11/16/10
7,833,437 11/622,523 11/16/10
7,833,440 11/597,272 11/16/10
7,833,445 11/075,737 11/16/10
7,833,450 11/158,650 11/16/10
7,833,451 11/656,942 11/16/10
7,833,454 12/415,133 11/16/10
7,833,462 10/555,685 11/16/10
7,833,463 11/457,918 11/16/10
7,833,468 10/492,163 11/16/10
7,833,480 10/402,596 11/16/10
7,833,483 11/777,305 11/16/10
7,833,486 11/283,952 11/16/10
7,833,494 10/353,639 11/16/10
7,833,502 12/402,981 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 28 |
7,833,505 11/404,142 11/16/10
7,833,515 10/987,630 11/16/10
7,833,521 11/927,628 11/16/10
7,833,536 11/994,677 11/16/10
7,833,543 10/316,441 11/16/10
7,833,557 11/599,558 11/16/10
7,833,563 10/509,294 11/16/10
7,833,585 12/503,516 11/16/10
7,833,592 10/566,049 11/16/10
7,833,599 09/831,320 11/16/10
7,833,604 11/947,170 11/16/10
7,833,607 10/509,269 11/16/10
7,833,610 10/399,797 11/16/10
7,833,616 11/281,192 11/16/10
7,833,617 11/930,320 11/16/10
7,833,618 11/930,379 11/16/10
7,833,622 12/157,747 11/16/10
7,833,628 12/007,063 11/16/10
7,833,651 11/879,129 11/16/10
7,833,656 10/540,867 11/16/10
7,833,670 11/143,684 11/16/10
7,833,714 11/566,888 11/16/10
7,833,717 11/929,893 11/16/10
7,833,720 12/403,719 11/16/10
7,833,721 12/403,759 11/16/10
7,833,722 11/587,631 11/16/10
7,833,745 10/937,223 11/16/10
7,833,748 11/866,525 11/16/10
7,833,750 10/961,569 11/16/10
7,833,764 12/525,417 11/16/10
7,833,772 11/524,693 11/16/10
7,833,779 10/272,461 11/16/10
7,833,782 12/292,190 11/16/10
7,833,784 11/564,141 11/16/10
7,833,801 11/601,062 11/16/10
7,833,821 11/552,503 11/16/10
7,833,827 11/708,839 11/16/10
7,833,830 11/778,196 11/16/10
7,833,841 12/187,601 11/16/10
7,833,842 12/630,076 11/16/10
7,833,844 11/899,295 11/16/10
7,833,859 12/337,866 11/16/10
7,833,866 11/943,639 11/16/10
7,833,885 12/323,872 11/16/10
7,833,890 12/457,366 11/16/10
7,833,901 11/591,704 11/16/10
7,833,905 12/435,446 11/16/10
7,833,912 11/790,722 11/16/10
7,833,929 12/509,120 11/16/10
7,833,955 11/557,508 11/16/10
7,833,962 10/566,806 11/16/10
7,833,964 10/923,515 11/16/10
7,833,966 11/561,912 11/16/10
7,833,967 11/766,178 11/16/10
7,833,972 12/371,525 11/16/10
7,833,980 12/333,133 11/16/10
7,833,987 10/598,700 11/16/10
7,833,988 11/083,944 11/16/10
7,834,001 11/667,583 11/16/10
7,834,006 11/486,213 11/16/10
7,834,008 10/568,483 11/16/10
7,834,013 10/595,892 11/16/10
7,834,014 10/552,304 11/16/10
7,834,015 12/227,501 11/16/10
7,834,027 11/570,173 11/16/10
7,834,028 12/298,369 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 29 |
7,834,032 10/590,912 11/16/10
7,834,035 10/578,589 11/16/10
7,834,040 11/718,935 11/16/10
7,834,044 11/931,246 11/16/10
7,834,049 11/097,218 11/16/10
7,834,050 11/692,552 11/16/10
7,834,057 09/922,233 11/16/10
7,834,063 11/576,965 11/16/10
7,834,095 12/333,137 11/16/10
7,834,121 11/694,031 11/16/10
7,834,131 11/707,743 11/16/10
7,834,140 11/870,736 11/16/10
7,834,143 11/827,396 11/16/10
7,834,145 11/886,149 11/16/10
7,834,149 11/876,595 11/16/10
7,834,156 11/857,405 11/16/10
7,834,157 11/981,957 11/16/10
7,834,159 11/580,203 11/16/10
7,834,161 10/569,677 11/16/10
7,834,163 10/560,723 11/16/10
7,834,166 11/524,354 11/16/10
7,834,179 12/101,206 11/16/10
7,834,182 12/381,099 11/16/10
7,834,187 11/571,866 11/16/10
7,834,194 11/722,101 11/16/10
7,834,218 12/162,970 11/16/10
7,834,221 11/988,274 11/16/10
7,834,222 11/989,885 11/16/10
7,834,230 11/465,720 11/16/10
7,834,244 11/722,298 11/16/10
7,834,266 11/497,353 11/16/10
7,834,283 11/567,862 11/16/10
7,834,284 11/579,519 11/16/10
7,834,285 11/741,901 11/16/10
7,834,287 11/590,035 11/16/10
7,834,295 12/211,554 11/16/10
7,834,299 11/891,212 11/16/10
7,834,303 12/135,655 11/16/10
7,834,306 12/053,670 11/16/10
7,834,314 12/082,149 11/16/10
7,834,318 12/104,112 11/16/10
7,834,319 11/923,934 11/16/10
7,834,324 12/113,317 11/16/10
7,834,334 12/092,692 11/16/10
7,834,335 12/290,116 11/16/10
7,834,358 12/318,739 11/16/10
7,834,370 11/667,374 11/16/10
7,834,372 12/336,107 11/16/10
7,834,377 11/733,351 11/16/10
7,834,402 11/798,376 11/16/10
7,834,408 12/320,279 11/16/10
7,834,413 10/581,081 11/16/10
7,834,437 11/777,346 11/16/10
7,834,439 11/942,552 11/16/10
7,834,449 11/741,804 11/16/10
7,834,457 12/039,280 11/16/10
7,834,465 12/232,004 11/16/10
7,834,475 12/772,217 11/16/10
7,834,477 12/371,251 11/16/10
7,834,478 12/148,007 11/16/10
7,834,487 12/231,926 11/16/10
7,834,488 12/100,469 11/16/10
7,834,500 12/230,527 11/16/10
7,834,514 11/977,301 11/16/10
7,834,532 12/402,978 11/16/10
7,834,533 12/038,385 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 30 |
7,834,534 11/953,470 11/16/10
7,834,535 11/961,691 11/16/10
7,834,551 11/555,495 11/16/10
7,834,556 12/076,158 11/16/10
7,834,559 11/354,838 11/16/10
7,834,576 11/748,054 11/16/10
7,834,584 11/212,687 11/16/10
7,834,596 12/018,211 11/16/10
7,834,607 12/090,614 11/16/10
7,834,638 12/047,991 11/16/10
7,834,639 12/022,162 11/16/10
7,834,642 11/852,334 11/16/10
7,834,643 12/058,030 11/16/10
7,834,644 11/992,425 11/16/10
7,834,647 12/502,875 11/16/10
7,834,649 12/779,038 11/16/10
7,834,651 12/058,767 11/16/10
7,834,655 12/551,474 11/16/10
7,834,660 12/006,199 11/16/10
7,834,700 12/535,309 11/16/10
7,834,707 11/314,331 11/16/10
7,834,719 12/475,196 11/16/10
7,834,726 12/292,943 11/16/10
7,834,727 10/562,748 11/16/10
7,834,737 11/852,592 11/16/10
7,834,747 11/813,945 11/16/10
7,834,749 12/120,417 11/16/10
7,834,754 11/204,748 11/16/10
7,834,764 12/169,748 11/16/10
7,834,767 11/712,490 11/16/10
7,834,778 11/207,514 11/16/10
7,834,794 12/439,444 11/16/10
7,834,804 12/469,928 11/16/10
7,834,816 10/562,058 11/16/10
7,834,820 11/441,024 11/16/10
7,834,823 11/826,256 11/16/10
7,834,852 12/102,004 11/16/10
7,834,858 11/580,950 11/16/10
7,834,869 11/180,784 11/16/10
7,834,870 11/257,114 11/16/10
7,834,875 11/695,487 11/16/10
7,834,879 12/112,680 11/16/10
7,834,885 11/746,074 11/16/10
7,834,887 11/099,710 11/16/10
7,834,890 10/964,674 11/16/10
7,834,898 12/188,034 11/16/10
7,834,904 10/691,129 11/16/10
7,834,906 12/143,824 11/16/10
7,834,913 11/808,987 11/16/10
7,834,917 11/665,037 11/16/10
7,834,927 12/221,455 11/16/10
7,834,931 11/659,234 11/16/10
7,834,934 11/589,153 11/16/10
7,834,939 11/447,383 11/16/10
7,834,944 12/632,341 11/16/10
7,834,955 10/585,418 11/16/10
7,834,957 11/797,018 11/16/10
7,834,963 10/596,223 11/16/10
7,834,977 12/073,126 11/16/10
7,834,978 11/447,858 11/16/10
7,834,985 11/792,321 11/16/10
7,834,989 12/048,052 11/16/10
7,834,992 11/695,743 11/16/10
7,835,006 11/267,093 11/16/10
7,835,017 10/583,985 11/16/10
7,835,022 11/422,491 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 31 |
7,835,027 11/424,178 11/16/10
7,835,029 12/114,801 11/16/10
7,835,039 12/030,947 11/16/10
7,835,042 11/528,429 11/16/10
7,835,049 11/947,637 11/16/10
7,835,060 12/413,662 11/16/10
7,835,071 12/076,335 11/16/10
7,835,072 12/076,343 11/16/10
7,835,081 12/275,154 11/16/10
7,835,087 12/286,403 11/16/10
7,835,090 12/453,283 11/16/10
7,835,095 12/042,602 11/16/10
7,835,100 11/933,446 11/16/10
7,835,108 11/824,338 11/16/10
7,835,110 11/656,692 11/16/10
7,835,135 12/040,368 11/16/10
7,835,142 11/827,815 11/16/10
7,835,143 12/140,357 11/16/10
7,835,149 12/341,395 11/16/10
7,835,159 11/892,930 11/16/10
7,835,160 11/996,999 11/16/10
7,835,180 12/347,520 11/16/10
7,835,198 11/966,779 11/16/10
7,835,202 11/864,285 11/16/10
7,835,221 11/456,059 11/16/10
7,835,227 11/817,307 11/16/10
7,835,230 12/435,943 11/16/10
7,835,232 11/426,769 11/16/10
7,835,236 11/887,751 11/16/10
7,835,237 11/995,746 11/16/10
7,835,239 12/357,559 11/16/10
7,835,240 11/820,254 11/16/10
7,835,242 11/594,211 11/16/10
7,835,244 12/019,023 11/16/10
7,835,247 11/871,160 11/16/10
7,835,248 11/858,656 11/16/10
7,835,249 11/779,670 11/16/10
7,835,250 11/994,021 11/16/10
7,835,252 11/734,535 11/16/10
7,835,255 11/458,777 11/16/10
7,835,259 11/805,903 11/16/10
7,835,280 12/350,682 11/16/10
7,835,284 11/539,300 11/16/10
7,835,290 11/503,592 11/16/10
7,835,309 12/336,233 11/16/10
7,835,354 11/611,244 11/16/10
7,835,359 11/298,322 11/16/10
7,835,360 11/889,984 11/16/10
7,835,400 12/480,523 11/16/10
7,835,407 12/341,924 11/16/10
7,835,411 12/402,573 11/16/10
7,835,423 11/780,929 11/16/10
7,835,436 10/538,086 11/16/10
7,835,453 12/350,120 11/16/10
7,835,468 11/374,577 11/16/10
7,835,473 11/288,111 11/16/10
7,835,474 11/352,827 11/16/10
7,835,492 11/998,063 11/16/10
7,835,498 11/815,866 11/16/10
7,835,501 12/444,749 11/16/10
7,835,508 09/505,913 11/16/10
7,835,519 12/358,702 11/16/10
7,835,525 10/613,125 11/16/10
7,835,532 11/491,113 11/16/10
7,835,533 11/491,252 11/16/10
7,835,537 11/249,572 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 32 |
7,835,541 11/171,277 11/16/10
7,835,545 11/230,026 11/16/10
7,835,551 11/708,656 11/16/10
7,835,573 11/393,710 11/16/10
7,835,586 11/832,084 11/16/10
7,835,588 11/564,719 11/16/10
7,835,604 11/816,552 11/16/10
7,835,614 10/559,695 11/16/10
7,835,615 11/247,623 11/16/10
7,835,638 11/684,121 11/16/10
7,835,650 11/776,322 11/16/10
7,835,685 11/442,946 11/16/10
7,835,686 12/055,759 11/16/10
7,835,692 11/895,796 11/16/10
7,835,705 11/951,494 11/16/10
7,835,708 12/604,844 11/16/10
7,835,715 11/975,209 11/16/10
7,835,716 11/450,354 11/16/10
7,835,720 11/751,538 11/16/10
7,835,731 12/329,522 11/16/10
7,835,735 10/853,506 11/16/10
7,835,782 11/912,460 11/16/10
7,835,810 11/707,645 11/16/10
7,835,811 11/867,590 11/16/10
7,835,813 11/957,415 11/16/10
7,835,818 11/830,829 11/16/10
7,835,836 11/557,673 11/16/10
7,835,839 11/349,349 11/16/10
7,835,851 11/908,654 11/16/10
7,835,870 11/264,452 11/16/10
7,835,880 12/286,448 11/16/10
7,835,899 11/744,922 11/16/10
7,835,922 11/170,910 11/16/10
7,835,929 10/220,134 11/16/10
7,835,930 10/570,874 11/16/10
7,835,933 10/118,815 11/16/10
7,835,944 10/502,553 11/16/10
7,835,956 11/973,936 11/16/10
7,835,969 12/463,559 11/16/10
7,835,970 09/496,389 11/16/10
7,835,989 09/289,957 11/16/10
7,836,022 11/250,095 11/16/10
7,836,027 11/474,052 11/16/10
7,836,030 11/939,532 11/16/10
7,836,039 11/609,698 11/16/10
7,836,058 12/056,302 11/16/10
7,836,059 10/974,278 11/16/10
7,836,061 11/967,144 11/16/10
7,836,068 11/867,151 11/16/10
7,836,072 10/529,162 11/16/10
7,836,076 10/922,694 11/16/10
7,836,078 11/012,906 11/16/10
7,836,080 11/615,807 11/16/10
7,836,082 12/020,474 11/16/10
7,836,102 12/345,641 11/16/10
7,836,106 11/774,024 11/16/10
7,836,112 11/231,091 11/16/10
7,836,114 11/689,547 11/16/10
7,836,115 11/257,434 11/16/10
7,836,129 11/612,526 11/16/10
7,836,143 11/739,948 11/16/10
7,836,161 11/459,904 11/16/10
7,836,166 10/880,222 11/16/10
7,836,173 11/814,573 11/16/10
7,836,180 11/677,042 11/16/10
7,836,187 12/253,756 11/16/10
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 33 |
7,836,198 12/052,264 11/16/10
7,836,210 12/078,037 11/16/10
7,836,221 12/049,156 11/16/10
7,836,237 12/232,355 11/16/10
7,836,246 12/214,952 11/16/10
7,836,250 11/182,338 11/16/10
7,836,257 11/959,804 11/16/10
7,836,266 11/229,954 11/16/10
7,836,286 12/013,468 11/16/10
7,836,287 12/176,385 11/16/10
7,836,295 10/207,695 11/16/10
7,836,307 11/720,843 11/16/10
7,836,311 10/624,019 11/16/10
7,836,312 10/570,298 11/16/10
7,836,314 11/506,876 11/16/10
7,836,326 11/878,634 11/16/10
7,836,355 11/949,132 11/16/10
7,836,365 11/132,673 11/16/10
7,836,377 11/625,160 11/16/10
7,836,385 12/366,189 11/16/10
7,836,390 11/275,750 11/16/10
7,836,394 11/405,501 11/16/10
7,836,421 11/941,748 11/16/10
7,836,425 11/301,734 11/16/10
7,836,437 11/352,000 11/16/10
7,836,453 11/842,510 11/16/10
7,836,460 11/531,233 11/16/10
7,836,489 11/424,415 11/16/10
7,836,506 11/234,531 11/16/10
7,836,514 10/921,818 11/16/10
| Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew |
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations
Due to Failure to Renew
15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be
renewed for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period
upon payment of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable
application for renewal. This may be done at any time within one year
before the expiration of the period for which the registration was
issued or renewed, or it may be done within six months after such
expiration on payment of an additional fee.
According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations
listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 1059.
TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED
December 12, 2014
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
2,839,560 76/437,874 05/11/2004
2,841,981 78/131,575 05/11/2004
1,276,982 73/330,826 05/08/1984
1,277,024 73/391,678 05/08/1984
1,276,660 73/404,291 05/08/1984
1,835,898 74/209,122 05/10/1994
1,835,975 74/220,760 05/10/1994
2,840,445 75/177,442 05/11/2004
2,840,447 75/265,360 05/11/2004
2,840,448 75/265,361 05/11/2004
2,840,449 75/271,225 05/11/2004
2,840,450 75/293,355 05/11/2004
2,839,336 75/371,937 05/11/2004
2,839,338 75/425,616 05/11/2004
2,840,471 75/610,933 05/11/2004
2,839,344 75/613,923 05/11/2004
2,840,475 75/653,027 05/11/2004
2,840,480 75/666,451 05/11/2004
2,840,491 75/732,651 05/11/2004
2,840,494 75/743,069 05/11/2004
2,840,508 75/816,249 05/11/2004
2,840,520 75/852,275 05/11/2004
2,840,528 75/881,472 05/11/2004
2,840,549 75/920,973 05/11/2004
2,840,552 75/926,317 05/11/2004
2,839,370 75/981,535 05/11/2004
2,839,372 75/983,397 05/11/2004
2,840,563 75/983,442 05/11/2004
2,840,569 76/022,899 05/11/2004
2,840,597 76/079,159 05/11/2004
2,840,603 76/087,760 05/11/2004
2,840,633 76/128,108 05/11/2004
2,840,634 76/128,363 05/11/2004
2,840,637 76/133,534 05/11/2004
2,840,638 76/133,618 05/11/2004
2,840,657 76/152,854 05/11/2004
2,840,665 76/157,002 05/11/2004
2,840,666 76/158,272 05/11/2004
2,839,402 76/170,687 05/11/2004
2,840,678 76/182,175 05/11/2004
2,840,681 76/184,441 05/11/2004
2,840,688 76/188,184 05/11/2004
2,840,693 76/190,407 05/11/2004
2,840,694 76/191,734 05/11/2004
2,841,872 76/204,395 05/11/2004
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 40 |
2,839,418 76/207,754 05/11/2004
2,839,420 76/214,197 05/11/2004
2,840,717 76/218,809 05/11/2004
2,840,733 76/230,373 05/11/2004
2,841,875 76/231,385 05/11/2004
2,840,738 76/233,209 05/11/2004
2,840,739 76/233,598 05/11/2004
2,839,424 76/235,327 05/11/2004
2,840,749 76/246,711 05/11/2004
2,840,755 76/250,987 05/11/2004
2,839,434 76/257,931 05/11/2004
2,840,766 76/259,761 05/11/2004
2,839,436 76/264,839 05/11/2004
2,839,437 76/268,118 05/11/2004
2,840,778 76/269,077 05/11/2004
2,840,779 76/269,558 05/11/2004
2,840,781 76/270,367 05/11/2004
2,840,790 76/276,584 05/11/2004
2,840,797 76/279,981 05/11/2004
2,840,823 76/295,508 05/11/2004
2,840,828 76/299,267 05/11/2004
2,840,840 76/305,616 05/11/2004
2,840,848 76/311,835 05/11/2004
2,839,453 76/329,864 05/11/2004
2,840,881 76/332,063 05/11/2004
2,841,883 76/332,817 05/11/2004
2,840,890 76/335,122 05/11/2004
2,839,457 76/336,583 05/11/2004
2,840,898 76/338,094 05/11/2004
2,840,901 76/339,016 05/11/2004
2,839,465 76/344,408 05/11/2004
2,839,471 76/351,337 05/11/2004
2,840,923 76/354,949 05/11/2004
2,840,926 76/356,477 05/11/2004
2,840,934 76/358,722 05/11/2004
2,839,476 76/360,188 05/11/2004
2,840,944 76/362,010 05/11/2004
2,841,889 76/367,513 05/11/2004
2,840,958 76/367,927 05/11/2004
2,840,959 76/368,631 05/11/2004
2,840,972 76/373,760 05/11/2004
2,840,975 76/374,215 05/11/2004
2,840,979 76/375,932 05/11/2004
2,841,005 76/381,428 05/11/2004
2,841,007 76/381,523 05/11/2004
2,839,497 76/382,858 05/11/2004
2,841,014 76/383,045 05/11/2004
2,841,015 76/383,082 05/11/2004
2,841,019 76/384,214 05/11/2004
2,841,021 76/384,864 05/11/2004
2,841,024 76/385,597 05/11/2004
2,841,031 76/388,141 05/11/2004
2,841,032 76/388,142 05/11/2004
2,841,897 76/389,984 05/11/2004
2,839,501 76/391,545 05/11/2004
2,841,042 76/392,493 05/11/2004
2,841,043 76/392,663 05/11/2004
2,839,504 76/393,051 05/11/2004
2,839,511 76/399,363 05/11/2004
2,841,064 76/400,980 05/11/2004
2,839,515 76/401,668 05/11/2004
2,839,518 76/403,242 05/11/2004
2,841,083 76/406,500 05/11/2004
2,841,899 76/406,637 05/11/2004
2,841,086 76/408,446 05/11/2004
2,841,088 76/408,687 05/11/2004
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 41 |
2,841,092 76/410,050 05/11/2004
2,841,109 76/416,544 05/11/2004
2,841,110 76/416,546 05/11/2004
2,841,124 76/420,715 05/11/2004
2,841,127 76/421,194 05/11/2004
2,839,535 76/422,738 05/11/2004
2,841,134 76/424,374 05/11/2004
2,841,137 76/425,133 05/11/2004
2,841,904 76/426,043 05/11/2004
2,839,539 76/426,524 05/11/2004
2,841,141 76/426,757 05/11/2004
2,841,142 76/427,108 05/11/2004
2,841,145 76/427,961 05/11/2004
2,841,159 76/433,903 05/11/2004
2,839,549 76/434,704 05/11/2004
2,841,163 76/435,368 05/11/2004
2,841,168 76/436,747 05/11/2004
2,841,171 76/437,661 05/11/2004
2,841,172 76/437,757 05/11/2004
2,841,176 76/438,296 05/11/2004
2,841,182 76/440,609 05/11/2004
2,841,183 76/440,940 05/11/2004
2,841,186 76/441,974 05/11/2004
2,841,193 76/443,006 05/11/2004
2,841,195 76/443,496 05/11/2004
2,839,567 76/445,424 05/11/2004
2,841,217 76/447,364 05/11/2004
2,841,223 76/448,697 05/11/2004
2,841,224 76/449,500 05/11/2004
2,839,578 76/450,554 05/11/2004
2,841,237 76/451,135 05/11/2004
2,841,249 76/453,453 05/11/2004
2,839,588 76/454,091 05/11/2004
2,841,251 76/454,341 05/11/2004
2,841,252 76/454,625 05/11/2004
2,841,254 76/454,649 05/11/2004
2,841,260 76/456,331 05/11/2004
2,839,597 76/457,483 05/11/2004
2,839,598 76/459,138 05/11/2004
2,839,601 76/459,595 05/11/2004
2,841,276 76/461,262 05/11/2004
2,841,289 76/464,385 05/11/2004
2,839,619 76/465,104 05/11/2004
2,841,297 76/465,558 05/11/2004
2,841,298 76/466,233 05/11/2004
2,841,303 76/467,326 05/11/2004
2,841,916 76/470,776 05/11/2004
2,841,917 76/471,591 05/11/2004
2,839,657 76/473,125 05/11/2004
2,841,316 76/473,296 05/11/2004
2,841,919 76/473,350 05/11/2004
2,841,921 76/473,356 05/11/2004
2,841,922 76/473,364 05/11/2004
2,839,661 76/474,126 05/11/2004
2,841,322 76/474,675 05/11/2004
2,841,925 76/474,954 05/11/2004
2,841,927 76/474,957 05/11/2004
2,839,678 76/477,137 05/11/2004
2,841,934 76/480,132 05/11/2004
2,839,701 76/481,754 05/11/2004
2,841,339 76/482,301 05/11/2004
2,841,346 76/484,447 05/11/2004
2,841,938 76/484,726 05/11/2004
2,841,349 76/485,553 05/11/2004
2,839,717 76/486,179 05/11/2004
2,839,719 76/486,227 05/11/2004
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 42 |
2,841,352 76/489,197 05/11/2004
2,841,353 76/489,580 05/11/2004
2,839,737 76/490,116 05/11/2004
2,841,944 76/490,616 05/11/2004
2,841,945 76/491,470 05/11/2004
2,839,742 76/493,311 05/11/2004
2,839,746 76/493,915 05/11/2004
2,839,761 76/499,613 05/11/2004
2,839,766 76/500,175 05/11/2004
2,841,363 76/500,501 05/11/2004
2,839,772 76/501,876 05/11/2004
2,839,773 76/501,946 05/11/2004
2,839,779 76/503,800 05/11/2004
2,839,784 76/504,370 05/11/2004
2,839,790 76/505,287 05/11/2004
2,839,791 76/505,289 05/11/2004
2,839,795 76/505,922 05/11/2004
2,839,804 76/507,075 05/11/2004
2,841,366 76/507,151 05/11/2004
2,841,367 76/507,155 05/11/2004
2,839,810 76/508,287 05/11/2004
2,839,823 76/510,728 05/11/2004
2,839,836 76/513,672 05/11/2004
2,839,837 76/513,718 05/11/2004
2,839,851 76/515,576 05/11/2004
2,839,862 76/516,217 05/11/2004
2,839,863 76/516,349 05/11/2004
2,839,865 76/516,612 05/11/2004
2,839,889 76/519,762 05/11/2004
2,839,892 76/520,047 05/11/2004
2,839,895 76/520,448 05/11/2004
2,839,903 76/520,733 05/11/2004
2,839,910 76/521,286 05/11/2004
2,839,918 76/522,174 05/11/2004
2,839,922 76/522,395 05/11/2004
2,839,928 76/522,940 05/11/2004
2,839,938 76/523,814 05/11/2004
2,839,947 76/524,789 05/11/2004
2,839,955 76/525,897 05/11/2004
2,839,957 76/526,286 05/11/2004
2,839,958 76/527,352 05/11/2004
2,839,959 76/527,625 05/11/2004
2,839,962 76/528,277 05/11/2004
2,839,978 76/531,239 05/11/2004
2,841,974 76/534,981 05/11/2004
2,839,991 76/537,892 05/11/2004
2,839,992 76/537,956 05/11/2004
2,841,373 76/975,906 05/11/2004
2,841,375 76/975,994 05/11/2004
2,839,997 76/976,390 05/11/2004
2,841,393 76/976,399 05/11/2004
2,841,399 76/976,446 05/11/2004
2,841,421 78/018,529 05/11/2004
2,839,999 78/037,042 05/11/2004
2,840,000 78/037,060 05/11/2004
2,841,436 78/043,816 05/11/2004
2,841,438 78/044,050 05/11/2004
2,841,443 78/051,108 05/11/2004
2,841,445 78/054,049 05/11/2004
2,840,008 78/066,595 05/11/2004
2,841,462 78/068,994 05/11/2004
2,841,476 78/076,901 05/11/2004
2,841,478 78/078,378 05/11/2004
2,841,484 78/082,870 05/11/2004
2,841,485 78/083,807 05/11/2004
2,841,504 78/092,578 05/11/2004
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 43 |
2,841,508 78/096,577 05/11/2004
2,841,522 78/104,625 05/11/2004
2,841,530 78/106,823 05/11/2004
2,841,531 78/106,828 05/11/2004
2,841,532 78/107,653 05/11/2004
2,840,018 78/115,831 05/11/2004
2,841,548 78/116,061 05/11/2004
2,841,557 78/120,690 05/11/2004
2,841,560 78/122,247 05/11/2004
2,840,021 78/124,160 05/11/2004
2,840,022 78/124,214 05/11/2004
2,841,566 78/124,799 05/11/2004
2,841,572 78/126,780 05/11/2004
2,841,980 78/131,087 05/11/2004
2,841,599 78/138,473 05/11/2004
2,840,046 78/144,468 05/11/2004
2,841,621 78/144,635 05/11/2004
2,841,983 78/145,644 05/11/2004
2,841,629 78/148,569 05/11/2004
2,840,052 78/148,966 05/11/2004
2,841,631 78/148,973 05/11/2004
2,841,633 78/149,357 05/11/2004
2,841,636 78/149,376 05/11/2004
2,840,055 78/152,909 05/11/2004
2,841,658 78/155,783 05/11/2004
2,841,666 78/157,891 05/11/2004
2,841,681 78/161,625 05/11/2004
2,841,682 78/161,629 05/11/2004
2,841,697 78/164,465 05/11/2004
2,840,071 78/166,338 05/11/2004
2,841,703 78/166,681 05/11/2004
2,841,713 78/169,012 05/11/2004
2,841,717 78/169,409 05/11/2004
2,841,718 78/169,411 05/11/2004
2,841,719 78/169,424 05/11/2004
2,840,079 78/170,857 05/11/2004
2,841,730 78/171,912 05/11/2004
2,841,734 78/172,488 05/11/2004
2,841,735 78/172,605 05/11/2004
2,841,737 78/172,817 05/11/2004
2,841,992 78/176,933 05/11/2004
2,840,096 78/179,041 05/11/2004
2,840,097 78/179,588 05/11/2004
2,841,752 78/179,744 05/11/2004
2,840,101 78/180,287 05/11/2004
2,840,102 78/180,288 05/11/2004
2,840,103 78/180,290 05/11/2004
2,840,106 78/180,687 05/11/2004
2,841,758 78/181,438 05/11/2004
2,840,112 78/183,470 05/11/2004
2,841,772 78/185,703 05/11/2004
2,840,127 78/186,025 05/11/2004
2,840,130 78/186,286 05/11/2004
2,840,140 78/188,085 05/11/2004
2,840,142 78/188,155 05/11/2004
2,840,146 78/189,843 05/11/2004
2,840,147 78/190,179 05/11/2004
2,841,783 78/192,845 05/11/2004
2,840,153 78/193,311 05/11/2004
2,841,785 78/193,524 05/11/2004
2,841,998 78/194,141 05/11/2004
2,841,795 78/198,081 05/11/2004
2,841,797 78/198,425 05/11/2004
2,840,168 78/199,355 05/11/2004
2,840,172 78/201,534 05/11/2004
2,840,176 78/203,819 05/11/2004
| January 6, 2015 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1410 OG 44 |
2,840,184 78/204,555 05/11/2004
2,840,185 78/204,763 05/11/2004
2,841,810 78/206,080 05/11/2004
2,840,194 78/207,854 05/11/2004
2,840,205 78/212,080 05/11/2004
2,840,211 78/214,858 05/11/2004
2,840,212 78/215,504 05/11/2004
2,842,011 78/215,624 05/11/2004
2,841,825 78/216,330 05/11/2004
2,840,214 78/217,124 05/11/2004
2,840,215 78/217,760 05/11/2004
2,840,216 78/217,877 05/11/2004
2,841,830 78/217,926 05/11/2004
2,840,227 78/221,874 05/11/2004
2,840,229 78/222,534 05/11/2004
2,840,230 78/222,802 05/11/2004
2,840,233 78/223,580 05/11/2004
2,841,840 78/228,744 05/11/2004
2,841,841 78/228,768 05/11/2004
2,840,253 78/228,959 05/11/2004
2,842,019 78/230,992 05/11/2004
2,840,262 78/231,818 05/11/2004
2,841,844 78/232,213 05/11/2004
2,841,845 78/233,602 05/11/2004
2,842,020 78/233,920 05/11/2004
2,840,276 78/236,652 05/11/2004
2,840,281 78/238,845 05/11/2004
2,840,284 78/240,094 05/11/2004
2,840,296 78/244,797 05/11/2004
2,840,297 78/244,942 05/11/2004
2,840,304 78/246,367 05/11/2004
2,840,305 78/246,908 05/11/2004
2,840,307 78/247,252 05/11/2004
2,840,314 78/248,774 05/11/2004
2,840,315 78/248,894 05/11/2004
2,840,323 78/251,132 05/11/2004
2,840,326 78/251,495 05/11/2004
2,840,336 78/253,223 05/11/2004
2,840,337 78/253,239 05/11/2004
2,840,342 78/253,822 05/11/2004
2,840,350 78/255,251 05/11/2004
2,840,353 78/256,160 05/11/2004
2,840,362 78/258,298 05/11/2004
2,840,364 78/258,344 05/11/2004
2,840,368 78/258,676 05/11/2004
2,840,375 78/260,145 05/11/2004
2,840,388 78/262,018 05/11/2004
2,840,400 78/262,798 05/11/2004
2,840,415 78/266,519 05/11/2004
2,840,416 78/267,529 05/11/2004
2,840,427 78/273,490 05/11/2004
2,840,429 78/274,295 05/11/2004
2,840,430 78/274,473 05/11/2004
2,840,434 78/276,641 05/11/2004
2,840,436 78/277,445 05/11/2004
2,841,852 78/975,171 05/11/2004
2,841,859 78/975,306 05/11/2004
| 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2014-0058]
2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Examination guidance; request for comments.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) has prepared interim guidance (2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, called "Interim Eligibility Guidance") for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court). This Interim Eligibility Guidance supplements the June 25, 2014, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. (June 2014 Preliminary Instructions) and supersedes the March 4, 2014, Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products (March 2014 Procedure) issued in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Myriad and Mayo. The USPTO is seeking public comment on this Interim Eligibility Guidance along with additional suggestions on claim examples for explanatory example sets.
DATES: Effective Date: This Interim Eligibility Guidance is effective on December 16, 2014. This Interim Eligibility Guidance applies to all applications filed before, on or after December 16, 2014.
Comment Deadline Date: To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before March 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this Interim Eligibility Guidance must be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to: 2014_interim_guidance@uspto.gov. Electronic comments submitted in plain text are preferred, but also may be submitted in ADOBE[supreg] portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD[supreg] format. The comments will be available for viewing via the Office's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov). Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-7728, or Michael Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-7700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) sets forth guidance for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106 (9th ed. 2014). The USPTO has prepared this Interim Eligibility Guidance for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of recent decisions by the Supreme Court. The following Interim Eligibility Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 supplements the June 25, 2014, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.1 (June 2014 Preliminary Instructions) and supersedes the March 4, 2014, Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products (March 2014 Procedure) 2 issued in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.3 and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.4 Implementation of examination guidance on eligibility will be an iterative process continuing with periodic supplements based on developments in patent subject matter eligibility jurisprudence 5 and public feedback.
The USPTO is seeking written comments on this guidance, as well as additional suggestions for claim examples to use for examiner training. Further, the USPTO plans to hold a public forum in mid-January 2015 in order to discuss the guidance and next steps and to receive additional oral input. When the date and location are finalized, notice of the forum will be provided on the Office's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov).
This Interim Eligibility Guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law. This Interim Eligibility Guidance sets out the Office's interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of recent decisions by the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), and advises the public and Office personnel on how these court decisions impact the provisions of MPEP 2105, 2106 and 2106.01. This Interim Eligibility Guidance has been developed as a matter of internal Office management and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the Office. Rejections will continue to be based upon the substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable. Failure of Office personnel to follow this Interim Eligibility Guidance is not, in itself, a proper basis for either an appeal or a petition.
This Interim Eligibility Guidance offers a comprehensive view of subject matter eligibility in line with Alice Corp, Myriad, Mayo, and the related body of case law, and is responsive to the public comments received pertaining to the March 2014 Procedure and the June 2014 Preliminary Instructions (see the Notice of Forum on the Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Natural Products, 79 FR 21736 (Apr. 17, 2014) and the Request for Comments and Extension of Comment Period on Examination Instruction and Guidance Pertaining to Patent- Eligible Subject Matter, 79 FR 36786 (June 30, 2014)). In conjunction with this Interim Eligibility Guidance, a set of explanatory examples relating to nature-based products is being released to replace the prior examples issued with the March 2014 Procedure and the related training. The explanatory examples relating to nature-based products address themes raised in the public comments and adopt many suggestions from the comments. Additional explanatory example sets relating to claims that do and do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception are being developed and will be issued at a future date, taking into account suggestions already received from the public comments, future public comments, and any further judicial developments.
The June 2014 Preliminary Instructions superseded MPEP sections 2106(II)(A) and 2106(II)(B). MPEP 2105 is also superseded by this Interim Eligibility Guidance to the extent that it suggests that "mere human intervention" necessarily results in eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106.01 is additionally now superseded with this interim guidance. Examiners should continue to follow the MPEP for all other examination instructions. The following sections pertain to examining for patent subject matter eligibility with details on determining what applicant invented and making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and should be reviewed closely as they are not duplicated in this Interim Eligibility Guidance:
| ● |
MPEP 2103: Patent Examination Process |
| |
| ■ |
2103(I): Determine What Applicant Has Invented and Is Seeking to Patent |
| ■ |
2103(II): Conduct a Thorough Search of the Prior Art |
| ■ |
2103(III): Determine Whether the Claimed Invention Complies With 35 U.S.C. 101 |
| ■ |
2103(IV): Evaluate Application for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 |
| ■ |
2103(V): Determine Whether the Claimed Invention Complies With 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 |
| ■ |
2103(VI): Clearly Communicate Findings, Conclusions, and Their Bases |
|
| ● |
MPEP 2104: Patentable Subject Matter |
| ● |
MPEP 2105: Patentable Subject Matter--Living Subject Matter6 |
| ● |
MPEP 2106: Patent Subject Matter Eligibility |
| |
| ■ |
2106(I): The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter |
| ■ |
2106(II): Judicial Exceptions to the Four Categories (not subsections (II)(A) and (II)(B)) |
| ■ |
2106(III): Establish on the Record a Prima Facie Case |
|
The current version of the MPEP (9th ed., March 2014) incorporates patent subject matter eligibility guidance issued as of November 2013.
This Interim Eligibility Guidance is divided into the following sections:
| |
Flowchart: Eligibility Test for Products and Processes; |
| |
Part I: Two-part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions; |
| |
Part II: Complete Examination; |
| |
Part III: Sample Analysis; and |
| |
Part IV: Summaries of Court Decisions Relating to Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Abstract Ideas. |
The following flowchart illustrates the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. It is recognized that under the controlling legal precedent there may be variations in the precise contours of the analysis for subject matter eligibility that will still achieve the same end result. The analysis set forth herein promotes examination efficiency and consistency across all technologies.
2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance: In accordance with the existing two-step analysis for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 explained in MPEP 2106, the claimed invention (Step 1) "must be directed to one of the four statutory categories" and (Step 2) "must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception." Referring to the attached flowchart titled Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, Step 1 is represented in diamond (1), which is explained in MPEP 2106(I). Step 2 is represented in diamonds (2A) and (2B) and is the subject of this Interim Eligibility Guidance. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp.7 (also called the Mayo test) for claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas (the judicially recognized exceptions).
I. Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions
A. Flowchart Step 2A (Part 1 Mayo Test)--Determine whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicial exceptions).
After determining what applicant has invented by reviewing the entire application disclosure and construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2103), determine whether the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception. A claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (Step 1: YES) that is not directed to any judicial exceptions (Step 2A: NO) is eligible and needs no further eligibility analysis. A claim that is directed to at least one exception (Step 2A: YES) requires further analysis to determine whether the claim recites a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
1. Determine What the Claim Is "Directed to"
A claim is directed to a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim. Such a claim requires closer scrutiny for eligibility because of the risk that it will "tie up" 8 the excepted subject matter and pre-empt others from using the law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. Courts tread carefully in scrutinizing such claims because at some level all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.9 To properly interpret the claim, it is important to understand what the applicant has invented and is seeking to patent.
For claims that may recite a judicial exception, but are directed to inventions that clearly do not seek to tie up the judicial exception, see Section I.B.3. regarding a streamlined eligibility analysis.
2. Identify the Judicial Exception Recited in the Claim
MPEP 2106(II) provides a detailed explanation of the judicial exceptions and their legal bases. It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions because many of these concepts can fall under several exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are considered to be an exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature. Likewise, "products of nature" are considered to be an exception because they tie up the use of naturally occurring things, but have been labelled as both laws of nature and natural phenomena. Thus, it is sufficient for this analysis to identify that the claimed concept aligns with at least one judicial exception.
Laws of nature and natural phenomena, as identified by the courts, include naturally occurring principles/substances and substances that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature. See Section I.A.3. for a discussion of the markedly different characteristics analysis used to determine whether a claim that includes a nature-based product limitation recites an exception. The types of concepts courts have found to be laws of nature and natural phenomena are shown by these cases, which are intended to be illustrative and not limiting:
| ● |
An isolated DNA (Myriad: see Section III, Example 2); |
| ● |
a correlation that is the consequence of how a certain compound is metabolized by the body (Mayo: see Section III, Example 5); |
| ● |
electromagnetism to transmit signals (Morse: 10 see Section IV.A.1.); and |
| ● |
the chemical principle underlying the union between fatty elements and water (Tilghman: 11 see Section IV.A.2.) |
Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts by way of example, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea `of itself,' and mathematical relationships/formulas.12 The types of concepts courts have found to be abstract ideas are shown by these cases, which are intended to be illustrative and not limiting:
| ● |
Mitigating settlement risk (Alice: see Section III, Example 6); |
| ● |
hedging (Bilski: 13 see Section IV.A.5.); |
| ● |
creating a contractual relationship (buySAFE: 14 see Section IV.C.3.); |
| ● |
using advertising as an exchange or currency (Ultramercial: 15 see Section IV.C.4.); |
| ● |
processing information through a clearinghouse (Dealertrack: 16 see Section IV.B.3.); |
| ● |
comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene: 17 see Section IV.B.4.); |
| ● |
using categories to organize, store and transmit information (Cyberfone: 18 see Section IV.B.5.); |
| ● |
organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech: 19 see Section IV.C.1.); |
| ● |
managing a game of bingo (Planet Bingo: 20 see Section IV.C.2.); |
| ● |
the Arrhenius equation for calculating the cure time of rubber (Diehr: 21 see Section III, Example 3); |
| ● |
a formula for updating alarm limits (Flook: 22 see Section III, Example 4); |
| ● |
a mathematical formula relating to standing wave phenomena (Mackay Radio: 23 see Section IV.A.3.); and |
| ● |
a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another (Benson: 24 see Section IV.A.4.) |
3. Nature-Based Products
a. Determine Whether the Markedly Different Characteristics Analysis Is Needed To Evaluate a Nature-Based Product Limitation Recited in a Claim
Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify "product of nature" exceptions. Courts have held that naturally occurring products and some man-made products that are essentially no different from a naturally occurring product are "products of nature" 25 that fall under the laws of nature or natural phenomena exception. To determine whether a claim that includes a nature-based product limitation recites a "product of nature" exception, use the markedly different characteristics analysis to evaluate the nature-based product limitation (discussed in section I.A.3.b). A claim that recites a nature-based product limitation that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state is directed to a "product of nature" exception (Step 2A: YES).
Care should be taken not to overly extend the markedly different characteristics analysis to products that when viewed as a whole are not nature-based. For claims that recite a nature-based product limitation (which may or may not be a "product of nature" exception) but are directed to inventions that clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception, see Section I.B.3. regarding a streamlined eligibility analysis. In such cases, it would not be necessary to conduct a markedly different characteristics analysis.
A nature-based product can be claimed by itself (e.g., "a Lactobacillus bacterium") or as one or more limitations of a claim (e.g., "a probiotic composition comprising a mixture of Lactobacillus and milk in a container"). The markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied only to the nature-based product limitations in the claim to determine whether the nature-based products are "product of nature" exceptions. When the nature-based product is produced by combining multiple components, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the resultant nature- based combination, rather than its component parts. In the example above, the mixture of Lactobacillus and milk should be analyzed for markedly different characteristics, rather than the Lactobacillus separately and the milk separately. The container would not be subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis as it is not a nature-based product, but would be evaluated in Step 2B if it is determined that the mixture of Lactobacillus and milk does not have markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterpart and thus is a "product of nature" exception.
For a product-by-process claim, the analysis turns on whether the nature-based product in the claim has markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart. (See MPEP 2113 for product-by-process claims.)
A process claim is not subject to the markedly different analysis for nature-based products used in the process, except in the limited situation where a process claim is drafted in such a way 26 that there is no difference in substance from a product claim (e.g., "a method of providing an apple.").
b. Markedly Different Characteristics Analysis: Structure, Function and/or Other Properties 27
The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. When there is no naturally occurring counterpart to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. In the case of a nature-based combination, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components that form the combination, i.e., the characteristics of the claimed nature-based combination are compared to the characteristics of the components in their natural state.
Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product's structure, function, and/or other properties,28 and will be evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis. As seen by the examples that are being released in conjunction with this Interim Eligibility Guidance, even a small change can result in markedly different characteristics from the product's naturally occurring counterpart. In accordance with this analysis, a product that is purified or isolated, for example, will be eligible when there is a resultant change in characteristics sufficient to show a marked difference from the product's naturally occurring counterpart. If the claim recites a nature-based product limitation that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics, the claim is directed to a "product of nature" exception (a law of nature or naturally occurring phenomenon), and the claim will require further analysis to determine eligibility based on whether additional elements add significantly more to the exception.
Non-limiting examples of the types of characteristics considered by the courts when determining whether there is a marked difference include:
| ● |
Biological or pharmacological functions or activities;29 |
| ● |
Chemical and physical properties; 30 |
| ● |
Phenotype, including functional and structural characteristics; 31 and |
| ● |
Structure and form, whether chemical, genetic or physical.32 |
If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, the claim does not recite a "product of nature" exception and is eligible (Step 2A: NO) unless the claim recites another exception (such as a law of nature or abstract idea, or a different natural phenomenon). If the claim includes a product having no markedly different characteristics from the product's naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, the claim is directed to an exception (Step 2A: YES), and the eligibility analysis must proceed to Step 2B to determine if any additional elements in the claim add significantly more to the exception. For claims that are to a single nature-based product, once a markedly different characteristic in that product is shown, no further analysis would be necessary for eligibility because no "product of nature" exception is recited (i.e., Step 2B is not necessary because the answer to Step 2A is NO). This is a change from prior guidance because the inquiry as to whether the claim amounts to significantly more than a "product of nature" exception is not relevant to claims that do not recite an exception. Thus, a claim can be found eligible based solely on a showing that the nature-based product in the claim has markedly different characteristics and thus is not a "product of nature" exception, when no other exception is recited in the claim.
If a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is ultimately made, the rejection should identify the exception as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim, and explain why it is an exception providing reasons why the product does not have markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state.
B. Flowchart Step 2B (Part 2 Mayo test)--Determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself--this has been termed a search for an "inventive concept." 33 To be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. It is important to consider the claim as whole. Individual elements viewed on their own may not appear to add significantly more to the claim, but when combined may amount to significantly more than the exception. Every claim must be examined individually, based on the particular elements recited therein, and should not be judged to automatically stand or fall with similar claims in an application.
1. "Significantly More"
The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations for determining whether a claim with additional elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The following are examples of these considerations, which are not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Limitations that may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
| ● |
Improvements to another technology or technical field; 34 |
| ● |
Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; 35 |
| ● |
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 36 |
| ● |
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; 37 |
| ● |
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; 38 or |
| ● |
Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.39 |
Limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
| ● |
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; 40 |
| ● |
Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry; 41 |
| ● |
Adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea; 42 or |
| ● |
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.43 |
Section III provides examples of claims analyzed under this framework.
If the claim as a whole does recite significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is eligible (Step 2B: YES), and the eligibility analysis is complete. If there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent- eligible application, such that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is not patent- eligible (Step 2B: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. In the rejection, identify the exception by referring to where it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. Then, if the claim includes additional elements, identify the elements in the rejection and explain why they do not add significantly more to the exception. Also see MPEP 2103(VI) and 2106(III) for instructions on making the rejection.
2. A Claim Reciting a Plurality of Exceptions
For a claim that is directed to a plurality of exceptions, conduct the eligibility analysis for one of the exceptions. If the claim recites an element or combination of elements that amount to significantly more than that exception, consider whether those additional elements also amount to significantly more for the other claimed exception(s), which ensures that the claim does not have a pre- emptive effect with respect to any of the recited exceptions. Additional elements that satisfy Step 2B for one exception will likely satisfy Step 2B for all exceptions in a claim. On the other hand, if the claim fails under Step 2B for one exception, the claim is ineligible, and no further eligibility analysis is needed.
3. Streamlined Eligibility Analysis
For purposes of efficiency in examination, a streamlined eligibility analysis can be used for a claim that may or may not recite a judicial exception but, when viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it. Such claims do not need to proceed through the full analysis herein as their eligibility will be self-evident. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full analysis should be conducted to determine whether the claim recites significantly more than the judicial exception.
For instance, a claim directed to a complex manufactured industrial product or process that recites meaningful limitations along with a judicial exception may sufficiently limit its practical application so that a full eligibility analysis is not needed. As an example, a robotic arm assembly having a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships is clearly not an attempt to tie up use of the mathematical relationships and would not require a full analysis to determine eligibility. Also, a claim that recites a nature- based product, but clearly does not attempt to tie up the nature-based product, does not require a markedly different characteristics analysis to identify a "product of nature" exception. As an example, a claim directed to an artificial hip prosthesis coated with a naturally occurring mineral is not an attempt to tie up the mineral. Similarly, claimed products that merely include ancillary nature-based components, such as a claim that is directed to a cellphone with an electrical contact made of gold or a plastic chair with wood trim, would not require analysis of the nature-based component to identify a "product of nature" exception because such claims do not attempt to improperly tie up the nature-based product.
II. Complete Examination
Regardless of whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is made, a complete examination should be made for every claim under each of the other patentability requirements: 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, 112, and 101 (utility, inventorship and double patenting) and non-statutory double patenting. See MPEP 2103 et seq. and 2106(III).
III. Sample Analyses
The following examples, based upon Supreme Court decisions, use the Interim Eligibility Guidance and flowchart to analyze claims for subject matter eligibility.
Example 1. Diamond v. Chakrabarty 44 (U.S. Patent No. 4,259,444)
Background: Stable energy-generating plasmids that provide hydrocarbon degradative pathways exist within certain bacteria in nature. Different plasmids provide the ability to degrade different hydrocarbons, e.g., one plasmid provides the ability to degrade camphor, and a different plasmid provides the ability to degrade octane. Pseudomonas bacteria are naturally occurring bacteria. Naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacteria containing one stable energy- generating plasmid and capable of degrading a single type of hydrocarbon are known.
Representative Claim:
A bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas containing therein at least two stable energy-generating plasmids, each of said plasmids providing a separate hydrocarbon degradative pathway.
Analysis: The claim is directed to a statutory category, e.g., a manufacture or composition of matter (Step 1: YES) and recites a nature-based product (a bacterium). To determine whether the claim is directed to a "product of nature" exception, the nature-based product is analyzed using the markedly different characteristics analysis.
The claimed bacterium has a different functional characteristic from naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacteria, i.e., it is able to degrade at least two different hydrocarbons as compared to naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacteria that can only degrade a single hydrocarbon. The claimed bacterium also has a different structural characteristic, i.e., it was genetically modified to include more plasmids than are found in a single naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacterium. The bacterium is new with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature, due to the additional plasmids and resultant capacity for degrading multiple hydrocarbon components of oil. These different functional and structural characteristics rise to the level of a marked difference, and accordingly the claimed bacterium is not a "product of nature" exception. Thus, the claim is not directed to an exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible.
Example 2. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (U.S. Patent No. 5,747,282)
Background: A human gene is a naturally occurring segment of DNA that codes for a protein. In nature, human genes are linked together by covalent bonds to form long chains of DNA called chromosomes. The inventors discovered the location and nucleotide sequence of a naturally occurring human gene called BRCA1. The BRCA1 gene encodes a polypeptide called BRCA1, which helps repair damaged DNA and prevent tumor formation. There are many naturally-occurring mutations in the BRCA1 gene. Some mutations are harmless, but others can dramatically increase a person's risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer.
Knowledge of the location and nucleotide sequence of the BRCA1 gene allows it to be isolated so that it can be studied, manipulated, or used. Isolated genes can be made in two different ways. The first way is to physically remove the gene from its natural location on the human chromosome by breaking two covalent bonds--one on each end of the gene--that connect the gene with the rest of the chromosome in nature. The second way is to synthesize the gene in a laboratory, e.g., by linking together nucleotides to form the naturally occurring sequence of the gene. Both ways result in a gene that is "isolated" from its natural environment, i.e., removed from the chromosome in which it occurs in nature.
The BRCA1 gene is about 80,000 nucleotides long, including several introns and several exons. In nature, the BRCA1 polypeptide is produced from the BRCA1 gene through an intermediate product called an mRNA. The natural creation of the BRCA1 mRNA in human cells involves splicing (removal) of the introns, and results in an exons-only molecule. The inventors used the mRNA to create an exons-only molecule called a complementary DNA (cDNA), which contains the same protein-encoding information as the BRCA1 gene, but omits the non- coding portions (introns) of the gene. The nucleotide sequence of this cDNA was disclosed as SEQ ID NO:1, and the amino acid sequence of the BRCA1 polypeptide as SEQ ID NO:2.
Representative Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
Claim 2. The isolated DNA of claim 1, wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.
Analysis: The claims are directed to a statutory category, e.g., a composition of matter (Step 1: YES), and recite nature-based products (a DNA). Thus, the markedly different analysis is used to determine if that nature-based product is a "product of nature" exception.
Claim 1: The claim encompasses isolated DNA that has the same nucleotide sequence as the naturally occurring BRCA1 gene. The isolation of the claimed DNA results in a different structural characteristic than the natural gene, because the natural gene has covalent bonds on the ends that connect the gene to the chromosome which the claimed DNA lacks. However, the claimed DNA is otherwise structurally identical to the natural gene, e.g., it has the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence as the BRCA1 gene in nature. The claimed DNA has no different functional characteristics, i.e., it encodes the same protein as the natural gene. Under the holding of Myriad, this isolated but otherwise unchanged DNA is not eligible because it is not different enough from what exists in nature to avoid improperly tying up the future use and study of the naturally occurring BRCA1 gene. In other words, the claimed DNA is different, but not markedly different, from its naturally occurring counterpart (BRCA 1 gene), and thus is directed to a "product of nature" exception (Step 2A: YES).
A claim directed to an exception should be analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Claim 1 does not include any additional features that could add significantly more to the exception (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2: The claim is limited to a DNA having the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1. As disclosed in the specification, SEQ ID NO: 1 is an exons-only sequence of a cDNA created by the inventors. The claimed DNA therefore has different structural characteristics than the naturally occurring BRCA1 gene, e.g., in addition to lacking covalent bonds on its ends, it has a different nucleotide sequence (SEQ ID NO: 1 includes only exons, as compared to the natural sequence containing both exons and introns). The claimed DNA has no different functional characteristics, i.e., it encodes the same protein as the natural gene. Here, the differences in structural characteristics between the claimed DNA and the natural gene are significant, e.g., they are enough to ensure that the claim is not improperly tying up the future use of the BRCA1 gene. Thus, they rise to the level of a marked difference, and the claimed DNA is not a "product of nature" exception. Thus, the claim is not directed to an exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible.
Example 3. Diamond v. Diehr (U.S. Patent No. 4,344,142)
Background: The claimed invention is a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products. The process uses a mold for precisely shaping the uncured material under heat and pressure and then curing the synthetic rubber in the mold so that the product will retain its shape and be functionally operative after the molding is completed. Achieving the perfect cure depends upon several factors including the thickness of the article to be molded, the temperature of the molding process, and the amount of time that the article is allowed to remain in the press. It is possible to calculate when to open the press and remove the cured product using well-known time, temperature, and cure relationships by means of the Arrhenius equation. The inventors characterize their invention as the process of constantly measuring the actual temperature inside the mold, and automatically feeding these temperature measurements into a computer that repeatedly recalculates the cure time by use of the Arrhenius equation. When the recalculated time equals the actual time that has elapsed since the press was closed, the computer signals a device to open the press.
Representative Claim:
Claim 1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising:
providing said computer with a data base for said press including at least, natural logarithm conversion data (ln), the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound being molded, and a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press,
initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding,
constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z),
repetitively calculating in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is ln v = CZ+x, where v is the total required cure time, repetitively comparing in the computer at said frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and
opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence.
Analysis: The claim is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES). The claim recites the Arrhenius equation, which is the mathematical formula: ln v = CZ+x. The court noted that an algorithm, or mathematical formula, is like a law of nature, which cannot be the subject of a patent. The claimed process when viewed as a whole focuses on the use of the Arrhenius equation to cure synthetic rubber. Thus, the claim is directed to an exception (Step 2A: YES).
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. The specifically disclosed and claimed constant measurement of temperature at a mold cavity of a rubber-molding press and the claimed repetitive computer recalculation of the appropriate cure time using the constantly updated measurements are additional elements that provide "something more" than mere computer implementation of calculation of the Arrhenius equation. Further, the claimed steps act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber to cured molded rubber. The combination of steps recited in addition to the mathematical formula show that the claim is not to the formula in isolation, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that apply the formula to improve an existing technological process. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: YES). The claim is eligible.
Note: The Supreme Court has also characterized mathematical formulas as abstract ideas. As noted, all claims that are directed to a judicial exception, regardless of what the exception is called, are subject to the same analysis.
Example 4. Parker v. Flook
Background: The invention is a method of updating alarm limits using a mathematical formula. An "alarm limit" is a number. During catalytic conversion processes, operating conditions such as temperature, pressure, and flow rates are constantly monitored. When any of these "process variables" exceeds a predetermined alarm limit, an alarm may signal the presence of an abnormal condition indicating either inefficiency or perhaps danger. The formula for updating alarm limits is used in a catalytic conversion processing system; however, there is no disclosure relating to that system, such as the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process conditions, the determination of variables in the formula from process conditions, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system.
Representative Claim:
Claim 1. A method for updating the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons wherein said alarm limit has a current value of Bo+K wherein Bo is the current alarm base and K is a predetermined alarm offset which comprises:
(1) Determining the present value of said process variable, said present value being defined as PVL;
(2) Determining a new alarm base B1, using the following equation: B1=Bo(1.0-F) + PVL(F) where F is a predetermined number greater than zero and less than 1.0;
(3) Determining an updated alarm limit which is defined as B1+GK; and thereafter;
(4) Adjusting said alarm limit to said updated alarm limit value.
Analysis: The claim is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES). The claim recites the mathematical formula "B1=Bo(1.0-F) + PVL(F)". The claimed invention focuses on the calculation of the number representing the alarm limit value using the mathematical formula. Thus, the claim is directed to a mathematical formula, which is like a law of nature that falls within the exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter (Step 2A: YES).
A process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or mathematical algorithm. The claim as a whole must be analyzed to determine what additional elements are recited in the claim. The claimed formula is limited by the steps of gathering the input variables and carrying out the calculation to update the number describing the alarm limit, and by the field of technology for which it is to be used. The determination of chemical process variables, and the use of a generic computer to calculate values, is routine and conventional in the field of chemical processing. Adjusting the alarm limit based on the solution to the mathematical formula is merely post- solution activity that could be attached to almost any formula. Limiting the claim to petrochemical and oil-refining industries, such that the claim does not seek to wholly preempt the mathematical formula, is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose meaningful limits on the mathematical formula. Moreover, when considered as an ordered combination, the claim is nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's formula. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide significantly more than a generic computer upon which the claimed formula is calculated. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Example 5. Mayo v. Prometheus (U.S. Patent No. 6,355,623)
Background: The invention is a method of assisting doctors who use thiopurine drugs to treat patients with autoimmune diseases. The method helps doctors determine whether a given dosage level is too low or too high, based on the relationship between the concentration in the blood of a thiopurine metabolite (6-thioguanine) and the likelihood that the drug dosage will be ineffective or induce harmful side-effects. The relationship is a natural consequence of the ways in which thiopurine compounds are metabolized by the body, even though human action is needed to trigger a manifestation of the relationship.
Representative Claim:
Claim 1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:
(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and
(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder,
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject.
Analysis: The claim is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES). The claim sets forth relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove ineffective or cause harm. While it takes a human action (the administration of a thiopurine drug) to trigger a manifestation of this relation in a particular person, the relation itself exists in principle apart from any human action. The claim recites that relation and, thus, is directed towards a natural law (Step 2A: YES).
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. The "administering" step simply refers to the relevant audience, namely doctors who treat patients with certain diseases with thiopurine drugs. That audience is a pre-existing audience; doctors used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders long before anyone asserted these claims. The "wherein" clauses simply tell a doctor about the relevant natural laws, at most adding a suggestion that the doctor should take those laws into account when treating the patient. The "determining" step tells the doctor to determine the level of the relevant metabolites in the blood, through whatever process the doctor or the laboratory wishes to use. The claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately. Even though the laws of nature at issue are narrow laws that may have limited applications, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the natural law itself (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Example 6. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,970,479 and 7,725,375)
Background: The claims at issue relate to a computerized scheme for mitigating "settlement risk"; i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation. In particular, the claims are designed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary. The intermediary creates "shadow" credit and debit records (i.e., account ledgers) that mirror the balances in the parties' real-world accounts at "exchange institutions" (e.g., banks). The intermediary updates the shadow records in real time as transactions are entered, allowing only those transactions for which the parties' updated shadow records indicate sufficient resources to satisfy their mutual obligations. At the end of the day, the intermediary instructs the relevant financial institutions to carry out the "permitted" transactions in accordance with the updated shadow records, thus mitigating the risk that only one party will perform the agreed-upon exchange. The invention is claimed in the form of a computer- implemented process, a system enabling that process, and a computer- readable medium enabling that process to be performed by a computer.
Representative Method Claim (U.S. Patent No. 5,970,479)
Claim 33. A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party's shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing one of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.45
Analysis: The claim is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES). The claim recites the concept of managing settlement risk through an intermediary, i.e., intermediated settlement. The claimed invention describes the procedures an intermediary should take in managing settlement risk between two parties, i.e., specific details of intermediating settlement. Intermediated settlement, like risk hedging in Bilski, is not a preexisting fundamental truth but rather is a longstanding commercial practice (a method of organizing human activity). The concept of intermediated settlement is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, which is in the realm of abstract ideas identified by the Supreme Court. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement (Step 2A: YES).
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Although a computer acts as the intermediary in the claimed method, the claims do no more than implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to create and maintain "shadow" accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping, which is one of the most basic functions of a computer. The same is true with respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions. All of these computer functions are "well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]" previously known to the industry. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the method add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, and thus simply recite the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Representative System Claim (U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375)
Claim 26. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:
a communications controller,
a first party device, coupled to said communications controller,
a data storage unit having stored therein
(a) information about a first account for a first party, independent from a second account maintained by a first exchange institution, and
(b) information about a third account for a second party, independent from a fourth account maintained by a second exchange institution; and
a computer, coupled to said data storage unit and said communications controller, that is configured to
(a) receive a transaction from said first party device via said communications controller;
(b) electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively; and
(c) generate an instruction to said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution to adjust said second account and/or said fourth account in accordance with the adjustment of said first account and/or third account, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution.
Analysis: The claim is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES). As discussed for the method claim, the claim recites the concept of intermediated settlement and is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Looking again to see what additional features are recited in the claim, the system includes a communications controller, a first party device, a data storage device, and a computer. The claimed hardware is generic hardware that nearly every computer will include. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance; the method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer, while the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
IV. Summaries of Court Decisions Relating to Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Abstract Ideas
The following brief summaries are taken from decisions from the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit in which claims were analyzed with respect to judicial exceptions to determine subject matter eligibility. Along with the examples in section III, these decisions demonstrate the various terms used by the courts to describe the exceptions and are provided simply to illustrate some of the different types of concepts found to fall within the exceptions. It should be noted that the courts' analyses in these decisions do not necessarily follow the eligibility framework explained in this Interim Eligibility Guidance as most of the cases were decided prior to Alice Corp. Therefore, instead of applying the eligibility analysis set forth in this Interim Eligibility Guidance to the facts of the decisions, a short description of the court's decision is provided for background purposes only. When considering these decisions, it is important to remember that the mere presence of an exception does not necessarily render a claim ineligible.
Part A presents several decisions from the Supreme Court, Part B presents several decisions from the Federal Circuit from 2010--2014 that dealt with abstract ideas, and Part C presents decisions from the Federal Circuit relating to abstract ideas since the Alice Corp. decision. Although the very small set of decisions from the Federal Circuit since Alice Corp. have resulted in findings of ineligibility, it should be recognized that the Supreme Court did not create a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor did it impose any special requirements for eligibility of software or business methods.
A. Supreme Court Decisions
1. O'Reilly v. Morse (U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 117)
Claim 6. The claim was interpreted by the Supreme Court as a system of signs (signals) by closing a galvanic circuit rapidly for telegraphing, combined with machinery to record the signs.
Claim 8. I do not propose to limit myself to the specific machinery, or parts of machinery, . . . the essence of my invention being the use of the motive power of the electric or galvanic current, which I call electro-magnetism, however developed, for making or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters, at any distances, being a new application of that power. . .
The claims are to the process of using electromagnetism to produce distinguishable signs for telegraphy, and in particular to print intelligible characters at any distance. While the format of the claims is outdated, it can be seen that claim 6 recites the system of signs in combination with the machinery for recording, which was found eligible. In contrast, claim 8 recites the use of electromagnetism without limits on the machinery for recording, which was found ineligible. The discovery of electromagnetism, which is a natural phenomenon, is not patentable by itself.
2. Tilghman v. Proctor (U.S. Patent No. 11,766)
The claim was interpreted by the Supreme Court as the process of subjecting to a high degree of heat a mixture continually kept up, of nearly equal quantities of fat and water in a convenient vessel strong enough to resist the effort of the mixture to convert itself into steam.
The claim is founded upon the chemical principle or scientific fact that the elements of neutral fat require that they be severally united with an atomic equivalent of water in order to separate from each other and become free. Although the claim recites the chemical union between the fatty elements and water, it is not directed to the mere principle. The claim is directed instead to a particular mode of bringing about the desired chemical union, i.e., by heating the water under such pressure that the water does not become steam, and accordingly was found eligible.
3. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387)
Claim 15. An antenna comprising a pair of relatively long conductors disposed with respect to each other at an angle substantially equal to twice 50.9(l/ϣ)-0.513 degrees, l being the length of the wire and ϣ the operating wave length in like units, and means in circuit with said antenna for exciting the conductors in phase opposition whereby standing waves of opposite instantaneous polarity are formed on the conductors throughout their length.
The claim is to an antenna system utilizing standing wave phenomena. To obtain the best directional radio propagation by a V type antenna, a mathematical formula is used to arrange the angle of the wires, their length, and the length of the wave propagated. The claim practically applies the mathematical formula to configure a particular antenna and thus was found eligible.
4. Gottschalk v. Benson
Claim 8. The method of converting signals from binary coded decimal form into binary which comprises the steps of:
(1) storing the binary coded decimal signals in a reentrant shift register,
(2) shifting the signals to the right by at least three places, until there is a binary `1' in the second position of said register,
(3) masking out said binary `1' in said second position of said register,
(4) adding a binary `1' to the first position of said register,
(5) shifting the signals to the left by two positions,
(6) adding a `1' to said first position, and
(7) shifting the signals to the right by at least three positions in preparation for a succeeding binary `1' in the second position of said register.
The claim recites a process for converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals. The procedures set forth in the claim are a generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical problems of converting one form of numerical representation to another. The mathematical procedures can be carried out in existing computers long in use or can be performed without a computer. The end use is unlimited. The process claim was found to be so abstract and sweeping that it covered both known and unknown uses of the BCD to pure binary conversion. The mathematical formula in the claim has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, and thus the court found the claim ineligible as it would in effect be a patent on the algorithm itself.
5. Bilski v. Kappos
Claim 1. A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of:
(a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer;
(b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and
(c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions.
The claim explains the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk. The court found that the concept of hedging is an unpatentable abstract idea, just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook. A dependent claim that narrows the concept to a mathematical formula was similarly found to be an abstract idea. The other dependent claims are broad examples of how hedging can be used in commodities and energy markets. Limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components does not make the concept patentable. The claims were found ineligible.
B. Abstract Idea Decisions From the Federal Circuit Prior to Alice Corp. (2010-2014)
1. SiRF Technology v. ITC 46 (U.S. Patent No. 6,417,801)
Claim 1. A method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals comprising:
providing pseudoranges that estimate the range of the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites;
providing an estimate of an absolute time of reception of a plurality of satellite signals;
providing an estimate of a position of the GPS receiver;
providing satellite ephemeris data;
computing absolute position and absolute time using said pseudoranges by updating said estimate of an absolute time and the estimate of position of the GPS receiver.
GPS is a satellite navigation system comprising satellites orbiting the Earth that permits a GPS-enabled receiver to detect signals from at least four satellites and use that information to calculate its distance from each satellite and thus its precise position on Earth through trilateration. The claim sets forth the steps of calculating the absolute position, which is a mathematical concept. The court interpreted the claim such that the method could not be performed without a GPS receiver, noting that the preamble expressly states "calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver" and that a GPS receiver is required to generate pseudoranges and to determine its position. With this interpretation, the presence of the GPS receiver in the claim places a meaningful limit on the scope of the claim. It is essential to the operation of the claimed method and plays a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed. As such, although performance of the claim requires calculations, the claim was found eligible.
2. Research Corp. Tech. v. Microsoft Corp.47 (U.S. Patent No. 5,111,310)
Claim 1. A method for the halftoning of gray scale images by utilizing a pixel-by-pixel comparison of the image against a blue noise mask in which the blue noise mask is comprised of a random non-deterministic, non-white noise single valued function which is designed to produce visually pleasing dot profiles when thresholded at any level of said gray scale images.
The claim is to digital image halftoning. Halftoning techniques allow computers to present many shades and color tones with a limited number of pixels, which allows computer displays and printers to render an approximation of an image by using fewer colors or shades of gray than the original image. One method of generating a digital halftoned image is called "thresholding" that uses a two-dimensional array called a "mask." The claimed method incorporates algorithms and formulas that control the masks and halftoning, but apply them in a technique that improves the generated digital halftoned image. The invention presents functional and palpable applications in the field of computer technology with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace. So, although the claimed method uses algorithms and formulas, the claim was found eligible.
3. Dealertrack Inc. v. Huber (U.S. Patent No. 7,181,427)
Claim 1. A computer aided method of managing a credit application, the method comprising the steps of:
[A] receiving credit application data from a remote application entry and display device;
[B] selectively forwarding the credit application data to remote funding source terminal devices;
[C] forwarding funding decision data from at least one of the remote funding source terminal devices to the remote application entry and display device;
[D] wherein the selectively forwarding the credit application data step further comprises:
[D1] sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than one of said remote funding sources substantially at the same time;
[D2] sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than one of said remote funding sources sequentially until a finding source returns a positive funding decision;
[D3] sending at least a portion of a credit application to a first one of said remote funding sources, and then, after a predetermined time, sending to at least one other remote funding source, until one of the finding sources returns a positive funding decision or until all funding sources have been exhausted; or,
[D4] sending the credit application from a first remote funding source to a second remote finding source if the first funding source declines to approve the credit application.
The court reduced the claim to its most basic concept which was characterized as receiving data from one source (step A), selectively forwarding the data (step B, performed according to step D), and forwarding reply data to the first source (step C). This basic concept of processing information through a clearinghouse was found to be an abstract idea, similar to Bilski's basic concept of hedging. The court held that simply adding a "computer-aided" limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, does not sufficiently limit the claim. The claim was found ineligible.
4. SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA (U.S. Patent No. 6,081,786)
Claim 1. A method for guiding the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient with a known disease or medical condition, said method comprising:
(a) providing patient information to a computing device comprising:
a first knowledge base comprising a plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens for said disease or medical condition;
a second knowledge base comprising a plurality of expert rules for evaluating and selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for said disease or medical condition;
a third knowledge base comprising advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens; and
(b) generating in said computing device a ranked listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient; and
(c) generating in said computing device advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing based on said patient information and said expert rules.
The claims set forth the steps of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify medical options. Claim 1 does no more than call on a "computing device" with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely. The court concluded that these are familiar mental steps performed by or with a computer, and as such the claim was found ineligible.
5. Cyberfone Systems v. CNN Interactive Group (U.S. Patent No. 8,019,060)
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
obtaining data transaction information entered on a telephone from a single transmission from said telephone;
forming a plurality of different exploded data transactions for the single transmission, said plurality of different exploded data transaction indicative of a single data transaction, each of said exploded data transactions having different data that is intended for a different destination that is included as part of the exploded data transactions, and each of said exploded data transactions formed based on said data transaction information from said single transmission, so that different data from the single data transmission is separated and sent to different destinations; and
sending said different exploded data transactions over a channel to said different destinations, all based on said data transaction information entered in said single transmission.
Using categories to organize, store, and transmit information is well-established. Here, the well-known concept of categorical data storage, i.e., the idea of collecting information in classified form, then separating and transmitting that information according to its classification, is an abstract idea. The claim was found ineligible.
C. Abstract Idea Decisions From the Federal Circuit Since Alice Corp.
1. Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415)
Claim 10. A method of generating a device profile that describes properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system for capturing, transforming or rendering an image, said method comprising:
generating first data for describing a device dependent transformation of color information content of the image to a device independent color space through use of measured chromatic stimuli and device response characteristic functions;
generating second data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial information content of the image in said device independent color space through use of spatial stimuli and device response characteristic functions;
and combining said first and second data into the device profile.
The court found the claim to be an abstract idea because it describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations and is not tied to a specific structure or machine. The claim recites the process of taking two data sets and combining them into a single data set, the device profile. The two data sets are generated by taking existing information--i.e., measured chromatic stimuli, spatial stimuli, and device response characteristic functions--and organizing this information into a new form. The claim language does not expressly tie the method to an image processor. It generically recites a process of combining two data sets into the device profile; it does not claim the processor's use of that profile in the capturing, transforming, or rendering of a digital image. Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible. All of the claims were found ineligible.
2. Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC (U.S. Patent No. 6,398,646)
Claim 1. A system for managing a game of Bingo which comprises:
(a) a computer with a central processing unit (CPU) and with a memory and with a printer connected to the CPU;
(b) an input and output terminal connected to the CPU and memory of the computer; and
(c) a program in the computer enabling:
(i) input of at least two sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by a player to be played in at least one selected game of Bingo in a future period of time;
(ii) storage of the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player as a group in the memory of the computer;
(iii) assignment by the computer of a player identifier unique to the player for the group having the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player wherein the player identifier is assigned to the group for multiple sessions of Bingo;
(iv) retrieval of the group using the player identifier;
(v) selection from the group by the player of at least one of the sets of Bingo numbers preselected by the player and stored in the memory of the computer as the group for play in a selected game of Bingo in a specific session of Bingo wherein a number of sets of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is less than a total number of sets of Bingo numbers in the group;
(vi) addition by the computer of a control number for each set of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo;
(vii) output of a receipt with the control number, the set of Bingo numbers which is preselected and selected by the player, a price for the set of Bingo numbers which is preselected, a date of the game of Bingo and optionally a computer identification number; and
(viii) output for verification of a winning set of Bingo numbers by means of the control number which is input into the computer by a manager of the game of Bingo.
The court found the claims to be directed to the abstract idea of solving a tampering problem and also minimizing other security risks during bingo ticket purchases. The claims relate to managing a bingo game while allowing a player to repeatedly play the same sets of numbers in multiple sessions. Managing the game of bingo consists solely of mental steps which can be carried out by a human using pen and paper. The claims do not impose any requirements that would make the invention impossible to carry out manually. Although not drawn to the same subject matter at issue in Bilski and Alice Corp., the court found managing a game of bingo to be similar to the kind of organizing human activity at issue in Alice Corp. The claims recite a generic computer implementation of the abstract idea and a program that is used for the generic functions of storing, retrieving, and verifying a chosen set of bingo numbers against a winning set of bingo numbers. There is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The court found no meaningful distinction between the method and system claims. All of the claims were found ineligible.
3. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (U.S. Patent No. 7,644,019)
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by at least one computer application program running on a computer of a safe transaction service provider, a request from a first party for obtaining a transaction performance guaranty service with respect to an online commercial transaction following closing of the online commercial transaction;
processing, by at least one computer application program running on the safe transaction service provider computer, the request by underwriting the first party in order to provide the transaction performance guaranty service to the first party,
wherein the computer of the safe transaction service provider offers, via a computer network, the transaction performance guaranty service that binds a transaction performance guaranty to the online commercial transaction involving the first party to guarantee the performance of the first party following closing of the online commercial transaction.
Claim 14. The method according to claim 1, wherein the transaction performance guaranty is provided in one form of: a surety bond; a specialized bank guaranty; a specialized insurance policy; and a safe transaction guaranty provided by the safe transaction service provider.
Relying on Bilski in which an abstract idea was found in certain arrangements involving contractual relations, the court found the claims to be squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a "transaction performance guaranty"--that is beyond question of ancient lineage. The claims' invocation of computers adds no inventive concept, with the computer functionality being generic. The transactions being performed online, at best, limits the use of the abstract guaranty idea to a particular technological environment. Although, dependent claim 14 narrows the abstract idea to particular types of relationships, that does not change the analysis because it does not make the idea non-abstract. The claims to the computer readable medium encoded with instructions to carry out the method were treated in the same way. All of the claims were found ineligible.
4. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC and WildTangent (U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545)
Claim 1: A method for distribution of products over the Internet via a facilitator, said method comprising the steps of:
a first step of receiving, from a content provider, media products that are covered by intellectual-property rights protection and are available for purchase, wherein each said media product being comprised of at least one of text data, music data, and video data;
a second step of selecting a sponsor message to be associated with the media product, said sponsor message being selected from a plurality of sponsor messages, said second step including accessing an activity log to verify that the total number of times which the sponsor message has been previously presented is less than the number of transaction cycles contracted by the sponsor of the sponsor message;
a third step of providing the media product for sale at an Internet Web site;
a fourth step of restricting general public access to said media product;
a fifth step of offering to a consumer access to the media product without charge to the consumer on the precondition that the consumer views the sponsor message;
a sixth step of receiving from the consumer a request to view the sponsor message, wherein the consumer submits said request in response to being offered access to the media product;
a seventh step of, in response to receiving the request from the consumer, facilitating the display of a sponsor message to the consumer;
an eighth step of, if the sponsor message is not an interactive message, allowing said consumer access to said media product after said step of facilitating the display of said sponsor message;
a ninth step of, if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query;
a tenth step of recording the transaction event to the activity log, said tenth step including updating the total number of times the sponsor message has been presented; and
an eleventh step of receiving payment from the sponsor of the sponsor message displayed.
Using the Alice Corp. framework, the court first determined whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The court found that the ordered combination of the eleven steps recites "an abstraction--an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" noting that the majority of limitations describe only the abstract idea of showing an advertisement before delivering content. The court then turned to the next step of the analysis to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe the abstract method. The court explained that consulting and updating an activity log represent insignificant "data-gathering steps," restricting public access represents only insignificant "[pre]- solution activity," and narrowing the idea to the Internet is an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea "to a particular technological environment." Viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, the claimed steps were found insufficient to supply an inventive concept because the steps are conventional and specified at a high level of generality. The court concluded that the claim limitations do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because "the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity." All of the claims were found ineligible.
5. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399)
Claim 19: A system useful in an outsource provider serving Web pages offering commercial opportunities, the system comprising:
(a) a computer store containing data, for each of a plurality of first Web pages, defining a plurality of visually perceptible elements, which visually perceptible elements correspond to the plurality of first Web pages;
(i) wherein each of the first Web pages belongs to one of a plurality of Web page owners;
(ii) wherein each of the first Web pages displays at least one active link associated with a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of merchants; and
(iii) wherein the selected merchant, the outsource provider, and the owner of the first Web page displaying the associated link are each third parties with respect to one other;
(b) a computer server at the outsource provider, which computer server is coupled to the computer store and programmed to:
(i) receive from the web browser of a computer user a signal indicating activation of one of the links displayed by one of the first Web pages;
(ii) automatically identify as the source page the one of the first Web pages on which the link has been activated;
(iii) in response to identification of the source page, automatically retrieve the stored data corresponding to the source
page; and
(iv) using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the web browser a second Web page that displays: (A) Information associated with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated, and (B) the plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page.
The court found the claim patent eligible under the Alice Corp. framework. First, the court noted that, while in some instances abstract ideas are plainly identifiable and divisible from generic computer limitations recited by the remainder of a claim, in this case, identifying the precise nature of the abstract idea is not as straightforward. The court considered several proposed characterizations of the abstract idea, including "`making two Web pages look the same,' `syndicated commerce on the computer using the Internet' and `making two e-commerce Web pages look alike by using licensed trademarks, logos, color schemes and layouts,"' and "that an online merchant's sales can be increased if two Web pages have the same `look and feel."' The court did not clearly indicate whether the claim was directed to one or more of these proposed abstract ideas, but stated that "under any of these characterizations of the abstract idea, the `399 patent's claims satisfy Mayo/Alice step two."
The court then explained its analysis of the second Mayo/Alice step, where it determined that the claim amounted to an inventive concept and thus was patent eligible. In particular, the claim addresses the problem of retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host's Web site to an advertiser's Web site, for which "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." The claim includes additional elements including "1) stor[ing] `visually perceptible elements' corresponding to numerous host Web sites in a database, with each of the host Web sites displaying at least one link associated with a product or service of a third-party merchant, 2) on activation of this link by a Web site visitor, automatically identif[ying] the host, and 3) instruct[ing] an Internet web server of an `outsource provider' to construct and serve to the visitor a new, hybrid Web page that merges content associated with the products of the third-party merchant with the stored `visually perceptible elements' from the identified host Web site." The court held that, unlike in Ultramercial, the claim does not generically recite "use the Internet" to perform a business practice, but instead recites a specific way to automate the creation of a composite Web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by Web sites on the Internet. Therefore, the court held that the claim is patent eligible.
Guidelines for Written Comments
It would be helpful to the USPTO if written comments include information about: (1) The name and affiliation of the individual responding; and (2) an indication of whether comments offered represent views of the respondent's organization or are the respondent's personal views. Information provided in response to this request for comments will be made part of a public record and may be available via the Internet. In view of this, parties should not submit information that they do not wish to be publicly disclosed or made electronically accessible. Parties who would like to rely on confidential information to illustrate a point are requested to summarize or otherwise submit the information in a way that will permit its public disclosure.
| December 10, 2014 |
MICHELLE K. LEE |
| |
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy |
| |
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office |
| |
|
| 1 | Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). |
| 2 | This analysis differs from the March 2014 Procedure in certain respects. Note, for example, the test for determining whether a claim is directed to a "product of nature" exception is separated from the analysis of whether the claim includes significantly more than the exception. Also, the application of the overall analysis is based on claims directed to judicial exceptions (defined as claims reciting the exception, i.e., set forth or described), rather than claims merely "involving" an exception. For instance, process claims that merely use a nature-based product are not necessarily subject to an analysis for markedly different characteristics. Additionally, the markedly different analysis focuses on characteristics that can include a product's structure, function, and/or other properties as compared to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. |
| 3 | Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013). |
| 4 | Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). |
| 5 | The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has a number of pending appeals that could result in further refinements to the eligibility guidance, including for example, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (In re BRCA1- & BRCA2- Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation), No. 14-1361 (Fed. Cir. filed Mar. 18, 2014), and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 14-1139 (Fed. Cir. filed Dec. 4, 2013). |
| 6 | To the extent that MPEP 2105 suggests that mere "human intervention" necessarily results in eligible subject matter, it is superseded by this Interim Eligibility Guidance. As explained herein, if human intervention has failed to confer markedly different characteristics on a product derived from nature, that product is a judicial exception (a product of nature exception). See generally Myriad; In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d. 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014). |
| 7 | Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355. |
| 8 | Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301 ("[E]ven though rewarding with patents those who discover new laws of nature and the like might well encourage their discovery, those laws and principles, considered generally, are `the basic tools of scientific and technological work.' And so there is a danger that the grant of patents that tie up their use will inhibit future innovation premised upon them, a danger that becomes acute when a patented process amounts to no more than an instruction to `apply the natural law,' or otherwise forecloses more future invention than the underlying discovery could reasonably justify" (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). |
| 9 | An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end," remain eligible for patent protection. Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67). |
| 10 | O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1853). |
| 11 | Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1881). |
| 12 | Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56. |
| 13 | Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). |
| 14 | buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., ____ F.3d ____, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). |
| 15 | Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC and WildTangent, ____ F.3d ____, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014). |
| 16 | Dealertrack Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012). |
| 17 | SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential). |
| 18 | Cyberfone Sys. v. CNN Interactive Grp., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential). |
| 19 | Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). |
| 20 | Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, ____ Fed. Appx. ____ (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential). |
| 21 | Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). |
| 22 | Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). |
| 23 | Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86 (1939). |
| 24 | Benson, 409 U.S. at 63. |
| 25 | Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2111. |
| 26 | Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360. |
| 27 | This revised analysis represents a change from prior guidance, because now changes in functional characteristics and other non-structural properties can evidence markedly different characteristics, whereas in the March 2014 Procedure only structural changes were sufficient to show a marked difference. |
| 28 | To show a marked difference, a characteristic must be changed as compared to nature, and cannot be an inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948) ("[The inventor did] not create a state of inhibition or of non-inhibition in the bacteria. Their qualities are the work of nature. Those qualities are of course not patentable."); In re Marden, 47 F.2d 958 (CCPA 1931) (eligibility of a claim to ductile vanadium held ineligible, because the "ductility or malleability of vanadium is . . . one of its inherent characteristics and not a characteristic given to it by virtue of a new combination with other materials or which characteristic is brought about by some chemical reaction or agency which changes its inherent characteristics"). Further, a difference in a characteristic that came about or was produced independently of any effort or influence by applicant cannot show a marked difference. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338 (Because "any phenotypic differences came about or were produced `quite independently of any effort of the patentee' " and were "uninfluenced by Roslin's efforts", they "do not confer eligibility on their claimed subject matter" (quoting Funk Bros.)). |
| 29 | See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130-31 (properties and functions of bacteria such as a state of inhibition or non- inhibition and the ability to infect leguminous plants); Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310 (1980) (genetically modified bacterium's ability to degrade hydrocarbons); In re King, 107 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1939) (the ability of vitamin C to prevent and treat scurvy); Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2111, 2116-17 (the protein-encoding information of a nucleic acid). |
| 30 | See, e.g., Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co., 189 F. 95, 103-04 (S.D.N.Y. 1911) (the alkalinity of a chemical compound); Marden, 47 F.2d at 958 (the ductility or malleability of metals); Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130 ("The qualities of these bacteria, like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the store-house of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none."). |
| 31 | See, e.g., Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338 (phenotype, including functional and structural characteristics, e.g., the shape, size, color, and behavior of an organism). |
| 32 | See, e.g., Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 305 and n.1 (the physical presence of plasmids in a bacterial cell); Parke-Davis, 189 F. at 100, 103 (claimed chemical was a "nonsalt" and a "crystalline substance"); Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116, 2119 (nucleotide sequence of DNA); Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338-39 (the genetic makeup (genotype) of a cell or organism). |
| 33 | Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357. |
| 34 | Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177-78) (a mathematical formula applied in a specific rubber molding process). |
| 35 | Id., at 2359. |
| 36 | Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3227 ("The Court's precedents establish that the machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101."). |
| 37 | Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184 ("That respondents' claims [to a specific rubber molding process] involve the transformation of an article, in this case raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing cannot be disputed."). See also Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article `to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. So it is that a patent in the process of `manufacturing fat acids and glycerine from fatty bodies by the action of water at a high temperature and pressure' was sustained in Tilghman, 102 U.S. at 721"). |
| 38 | Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1299, 1302 (claim ineligible because the recited "instructions add nothing specific to the laws of nature other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously engaged in by those in the field," which was "[u]nlike, say, a typical patent on a new drug or a new way of using an existing drug"). |
| 39 | Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking `the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers" (citing Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 611)). |
| 40 | Id. at 2358 (simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301)). |
| 41 | Id. at 2359 (using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions); Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300 (telling a doctor to measure metabolite levels in the blood using any known process). |
| 42 | Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297-98 (measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90 (1978) (adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula). |
| 43 | Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300-01 (citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3223-24) (limiting hedging to use in commodities and energy markets); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90. |
| 44 | Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 303. |
| 45 | In Alice Corp., the parties stipulated that the method was performed by a computer, despite the lack of a computer recitation in the representative method claim. |
| 46 | SiRF Tech. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). |
| 47 | Research Corp. Tech. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010). |
key to return to the previous page.
Top of Notices January 6, 2015
Top of Notices