Jmol example usage trial#

The PTAB affirmed the examiner rejection of all pending claims - concluding that the claims were directed to an “abstract mental process.” Although the claim recited various technology, the Board concluded that those were ancillary under Alice Step 1 (“insignificant extra-solution activity”) and under Alice Step 2, those additions were insufficient to transform the unpatentable idea into a patent eligible invention. But, still, the claims suffered from the fatal defect of being directed toward an abstract idea. The examiner found the claims novel, non-obvious, and sufficiently definite. Once an individual is identified, the claims then call for information a GUI to open for a caseworker who inputs various information such as SSN, birth information, family information in order to determine eligibility for benefits.

Those records are then compared against the Federal SSDI rolls. The basic approach is to get access to state records of individuals receiving treatment for developmental disabilities or mental illness from a state licensed facility. Jeffrey Killian filed his patent application back in 2014 seeking to patent his computerized algorithm for identifying “overlooked eligibility for social security disability insurance” and other adult-child benefits. The court seemingly made the case precedential to help avoid seeing these same arguments arise again. This decision authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Taranto and Clevenger appears as something of a tour-de-force rejecting a large number of spurious eligibility arguments. Read the new order here: (Archive copy: 22-160) Instead, the court will accession the cases to the National Archives and Records Administration for permanent retention under seal. Specifically, the court finds that there will be insufficient time and considerable, unanticipated administrative difficulty to both the court and to counsel in providing an opportunity for counsel and parties in the previously-identified cases to permit a physical review of the identified cases by the National Archives and Records Administration’s Decemdeadline for the court to complete the accessioning of its remaining pa-per case records. Upon further consideration of the court’s AugOrder, the court finds it impracticable at this time to continue to proceed with the proposed unsealing of previously-identified cases. Today the court issued a new order rescinding that order as “impracticable.” Docket 22-160: Is your (old) appeal on this list? Last week the Federal Circuit issued an order relating to the unsealing of materials filed in cases docketed ten or more years ago. Wherein the system: in response to a first communication command received from a user, transmits to the delivery module the treat delivery command plays at least one of live audio or video received from the user of a remote client device and transmits to the remote client device at least one of live audio or video of the pet, wherein the system begins transmission to the remote client device of at least one of the audio or video of the pet in response to input from the pet.

A system for communicating with a pet, comprising:Ī food dispenser that dispenses treats from the treat bin Ī delivery module that: receives a treat delivery command and in response to the received treat delivery command: dispenses via the food dispenser at least one treat from the treat bin plays via audio device an audio signal that notifies the pet of availability of a treat and receives input from the pet andĪ control that transmits to the delivery module a treat delivery command,

The district court just issued claim construction, refusing to find any of the claim terms indefinite and giving all terms their ‘plain and ordinary meaning.’ħ.

Jmol example usage trial#

Now though the case is up and running again with jury trial set for January 2023. The district court had stayed litigation pending outcome of the IPR. However, the PTAB denied institution, after finding that the asserted prior art failed to teach all of the claimed elements in the proper combination. Tomofun petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) on five separate grounds. You can buy something similar from Amazon – the Furbo dog camera.ĭoggyPhone has sued Tomofun (maker of Furbo) for patent infringement. Figure 9 below comes from his US9723813 (2012 priority date). In his spare time he invents canine communication devices and treat dispensers. Andrew Davis is an ophthalmologist in Bellevue.