About: Ex parte Lundgren

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Ex parte Lundgren Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatDecisionsOfTheBoardOfPatentAppealsAndInterferences, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FEx_parte_Lundgren

Ex parte Lundgren is a 2005 decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office board of appeals, i.e. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) concerning the standard for patent eligible subject matter in the United States. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, patent applicants are entitled to a patent only if they claim patent eligible subject matter. In Lundren, the applicant sought to patent a business method for evaluating and rewarding manager performance. Following an initial examination, the USPTO examiner rejected the applicant's claims, finding that they were not directed towards patent eligible subject matter. The applicant appealed this decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which subsequently held that process inventions do not have to be in the technolog

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Act100030358 yago:Action100037396 yago:Choice100161243 yago:Decision100162632 yago:Event100029378 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity Supreme Court of the United States case yago:WikicatDecisionsOfTheBoardOfPatentAppealsAndInterferences
rdfs:label	Ex parte Lundgren (en)
rdfs:comment	Ex parte Lundgren is a 2005 decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office board of appeals, i.e. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) concerning the standard for patent eligible subject matter in the United States. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, patent applicants are entitled to a patent only if they claim patent eligible subject matter. In Lundren, the applicant sought to patent a business method for evaluating and rewarding manager performance. Following an initial examination, the USPTO examiner rejected the applicant's claims, finding that they were not directed towards patent eligible subject matter. The applicant appealed this decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which subsequently held that process inventions do not have to be in the technolog (en)
dcterms:subject	Decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 2004 in United States case law United States patent case law Law articles needing an infobox
Wikipage page ID	3040281 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1026138618 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	United States United States Patent and Trademark Office Decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Invention Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group 2004 in United States case law United States patent case law Law articles needing an infobox Title 35 of the United States Code Diamond v. Diehr Business method patent Freeman-Walter-Abele Test Ex Parte Bowman Patentability
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://web.archive.org/web/20051103032043/http:/www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/prec/2003-2088.pdf
sameAs	Ex parte Lundgren Ex parte Lundgren Ex parte Lundgren Ex parte Lundgren
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:About dbt:Italic_title dbt:Short_description dbt:US-case-law-stub
has abstract	Ex parte Lundgren is a 2005 decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office board of appeals, i.e. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) concerning the standard for patent eligible subject matter in the United States. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, patent applicants are entitled to a patent only if they claim patent eligible subject matter. In Lundren, the applicant sought to patent a business method for evaluating and rewarding manager performance. Following an initial examination, the USPTO examiner rejected the applicant's claims, finding that they were not directed towards patent eligible subject matter. The applicant appealed this decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which subsequently held that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable in the United States. They do, however, have to produce a "concrete, useful and tangible result". The Board's decision in Lundgren constituted one of the first in a series of decisions beginning in the mid-2000s and continuing into the late 2010s regarding patent eligible subject matter. (en)
gold:hypernym	Decision
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Ex_parte_Lundgren?oldid=1026138618&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	3023 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Ex_parte_Lundgren
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	Carl Lundgren (disambiguation) Ex Parte Lundgren Lundgren Ex parte Carl A. Lundgren
is Wikipage redirect of	Ex Parte Lundgren Ex parte Carl A. Lundgren
is Wikipage disambiguates of	Lundgren
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:Ex_parte_Lundgren

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 67 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software