§

9051147 Canada Inc.

2019002837 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2020)
9051147 Canada Inc.

28 Cited authorities

  1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    463 U.S. 29 (1983)   Cited 6,847 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

  2. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 283 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  3. Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.

    633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 203 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FDA-required instructions did not create functional relationship to drug

  4. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC

    677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 134 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "system memory" structure in the specification was "the disclosed structure clearly associated with 'system memory means,"' the stipulated means-plus-function limitation in the claim

  5. Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels

    812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 60 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding no motivation to modify the prior art where doing so "would destroy the basic objective" of the prior art

  6. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.

    780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 57 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Affirming anticipation determination where a person of skill in the art would "at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination"

  7. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

    814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 46 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "the validity of claims for which the Board did not institute inter partes review can still be litigated in district court"

  8. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co.

    242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 66 times
    Finding that preamble term limited claim because the term was used in the specification as well as in all of the claims

  9. Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc.

    878 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 27 times
    Determining that the Board applied the correct legal standard in not requiring "word-for-word similarity or perfection" and instead considering "whether a POSA would 'at once envisage' the combination of the claimed invention"

  10. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,530 times   2291 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  15. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  16. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  17. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and