Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You better get in IN IN IN . Going up.
Does somebody know something.
Just buy now and save yourself cash.
Let's go am go.
I will be watching this one close.
Let's go Biei.
I see something happening.
I see something happening.
Been getting better.
Been getting better.
You better believe it, in more than one way. Mark my word.
At step two, the CAFC said that “[c]ontrary to the district court’s conclusion, the ’903 patent discloses a technical solution to a security problem in networks and computers.” The district court’s conclusion that the specification admitted that “detection of activation of an authentication function’s activity and the activation by users of an authentication function within a pre-determined time relation were ‘well-understood and routine, conventional activities previously known in the authentication technology field” was “misplaced,” said the CAFC. The section of the specification on which the district court relied to reach that conclusion was misinterpreted; the prior art references mentioned in the relevant section did not teach the recited claim steps, but were instead included to demonstrated the claims’ advantages over them.
Duo attempted to argue that “using a second communication channel in a timing mechanism and an authentication function that is normally inactive, activated only preliminarily, and automatically deactivated” is itself abstract and cannot be used to prove an inventive concept. Duo here cited ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., in which the CAFC court held “claims directed to network-controlled charging stations for electric vehicles abstract, including a dependent claim reciting a component ‘that can activate or deactivate charging at the connection.’” But the CAFC said that each case must be evaluated individually and distinguished Chargepoint:
In his concurring opinion, Judge Reyna disagreed with the majority’s analysis and application of the law. He found the claims directed to patent eligible subject matter at Alice step one for the same reasons the majority found them to be eligible at step two, and criticized the majority for essentially skipping step one and treating step two as if it operates independently. He wrote: “In sum, the majority skips step one of the Alice inquiry and bases its decision on what it claims is step two. I believe this approach is extraordinary and contrary to Supreme Court precedent. It turns the Alice inquiry on its head.”
What is this.
Ready for tomorrow.
I'm ready for maronti1 Beach.
Yes we are.
Say what you must, but I know you are jumping on this run.
ok baby lets go.
up that much ay.
get up to 30 40 dollars,
Lets go am lets go.
Well here I am.
We are going hot.
YOU MUST BE LEADING A CAMEL IN THE DESSERT.
BEEN DROPPING SINCE JUNE. BUT SOMEONE KNOWS SOMETHING AND IT'S GETTING READY TO RUN. RUN WHERE, HEAD TO THE HILLS.
Y'all keep telling us how bad this company is, How much have you saved me if I'm still here.
That's a better interview!!!!.
Alrighty then.
Who showing up been here since 2005 How bout you.
Okay Bandit, Good one.
your choice.
Yeah, But its time.
From yesterday Starting at -- 34.07 . https://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/New-to-the-Street/vid/1_1srm44ki
Seen it Sunday George does most of talking. Say some deals are being made.
Yesterday on news max tv. Interesting.
A great report today. On new to the street.
Next week we ROCK!!!.
Lets go SFOR this is your time this time.