I'm still reading, but these are my favorite gems,
Post# of 82690
(Total Views: 710)
Posted On: 06/06/2018 3:39:24 PM
I'm still reading, but these are my favorite gems, so far:
"SecureAuth’s assertion that the Asserted Claims are conventional and
abstract, Response 34-42, 45-48, fails to account for the specification (which at this stage must be taken as true), which expressly identifies the problem in conventional technological processes solved by the claims’ technological improvement."
"Indeed, the specification’s disparagement of prior art systems and explanation of how the claims employ a new network structure “to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 Case: 18-1470 Document: 27 Page: 17 Filed: 06/04/2018-11-(Fed. Cir. 2014), is confirmed by the multiple failed attempts to invalidate the claims at the PTO over prior art directed to traditional processes. See Br. 16-17, 31, 42-43. SecureAuth cannot negate these improvements by ignoring them."
"Attempting to resuscitate the court’s opinion, SecureAuth argues that the court held that the claims are “directed to the abstract idea of ‘out-of-band authentication.’” Response 43 (emphasis by SecureAuth). This cannot be squared with the court’s actual language, but nevertheless, both the court and SecureAuth are incorrect."
"SecureAuth’s assertion that the Asserted Claims are conventional and
abstract, Response 34-42, 45-48, fails to account for the specification (which at this stage must be taken as true), which expressly identifies the problem in conventional technological processes solved by the claims’ technological improvement."
"Indeed, the specification’s disparagement of prior art systems and explanation of how the claims employ a new network structure “to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 Case: 18-1470 Document: 27 Page: 17 Filed: 06/04/2018-11-(Fed. Cir. 2014), is confirmed by the multiple failed attempts to invalidate the claims at the PTO over prior art directed to traditional processes. See Br. 16-17, 31, 42-43. SecureAuth cannot negate these improvements by ignoring them."
"Attempting to resuscitate the court’s opinion, SecureAuth argues that the court held that the claims are “directed to the abstract idea of ‘out-of-band authentication.’” Response 43 (emphasis by SecureAuth). This cannot be squared with the court’s actual language, but nevertheless, both the court and SecureAuth are incorrect."
(9)
(0)