| Computer-related
inventions and Business methods |
| Keywords |
|
Business methods |
•White
Paper on Automated Financial or Management Data Processing Methods
(Business Methods)(2000) |
Training: Rejection: 35 USC 103 - Obviousness |
•Formulating
and Communicating Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Applications
Directed to Computer-Implemented Business Method Inventions (2000) |
Training: 5 case samples |
•Training
Materials Directed To Business, Artificial Intelligence, And
Mathematical Processing Applications (1998) |
| Reexamination |
Exam guide: re In
re Portola Packaging , Inc |
•Guidelines
for Reexamination of Cases in View of In re Portola Packaging,
Inc., 110 F.3d 786, 42 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(1999) |
| 35 U.S.C. 101 - Subject Matter Eligibility |
Exam guide, Interim |
•Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (2005) |
| 35
U.S.C. 101 - Utility |
Exam guide |
•Utility
Examination Guidelines (2000) [PDF] |
Training: Exam guide, interim |
•Revised
Interim Utility Guidelines Training Materials (1999) [PDF] |
Training: Business methods, AI,
Mathematical processing |
•Training
Materials Directed To Business, Artificial Intelligence, And Mathematical
Processing Applications (1998) |
| 35 U.S.C. 102 - Novelty |
Exam guide |
•Examination
Guidelines for 35 U.S.C. §102(e)(2), as amended by the American
Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (2000) |
| 35 U.S.C. 103 - Obviousness |
Rejections: Computer-implemented
business methods |
•Formulating
and Communicating Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Applications
Directed to Computer-Implemented Business Method Inventions (2000) |
Exam guide: Chemical compositions
Exam guide, interim: Chemical compositions |
•Guidelines
for the Examination of Claims Directed to Species of Chemical
Compositions Based Upon a Single Prior Art Reference (1998) |
Training: Product & process claims In re Brouwer and In
re Ochiai |
•Training Materials for Treatment of Product
and Process Claims in Light of In re Brouwer and In re Ochiai
and 35 U.S.C. 103(b)(1996) |
Examination Guidelines (KSR)
|
•Examination Training Materials in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. |
| 35 U.S.C. 112, First
Paragraph - Written Description |
Exam guide |
•Guidelines
for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, "Written
Description" Requirement (2000) [PDF] |
Training: Written Description |
•Written Description Guidelines Training Materials (2008) [PDF] |
Training: Enablement Chemical/Biotechnical |
•Training Materials for Examining Patent Applications
with Respect to 35 U.S.C. Section § 112, First Paragraph - Enablement
Chemical/Biotechnical Applications (1996) |
| 35
U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph - "Means or Step-plus-function" - Claim limitation - element (structure, material or acts) recited as a means or step for performing a function that is adequately described elsewhere in the application (summary, specification, original claims, abstract & drawings) and clearly associated within that function's description. |
| Exam guide, supplemental |
•Supplemental
Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35
U.S.C. §112, para. 6 (2000) |
Exam guide, interim
supplemental |
•Interim
Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 (1999) |
Exam guide: Means or
Step-plus-function claims |
•Examination
Guidelines for Claims Reciting a "Means or Step Plus Function" Limitation
in Accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th (1994) [PDF] |
Guidelines & more…
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)