§

Alice Mary. Kiely

2019002783 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)
Alice Mary. Kiely

21 Cited authorities

  1. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

    774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 459 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ ” and the “actual inventor's skill is irrelevant” to the obviousness inquiry

  2. Miles Laboratories Inc. v. Shandon Inc.

    997 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 183 times
    Noting that operability is relevant "to the enablement requirement of § 112"

  3. United Carbon Co. v. Binney Co.

    317 U.S. 228 (1942)   Cited 238 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding indefinite patent claims that recited, for example, "sustantially pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"

  4. Turbocare Div. of Demag Delaval v. G.E

    264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[n]o reasonable juror could find that [the appellant's] original disclosure was sufficiently detailed to enable one of skill in the art to recognize that [the appellant] invented what is claimed"

  5. In re Packard

    751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 37 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Addressing the issues separately

  6. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  7. In re Walter

    No. 2016-2256 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2017)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "block-like" was indefinite because it "is a term of degree without any accompanying guidance in the intrinsic record for determining its scope;" and even though it "ostensibly covers a range of shapes that are sufficiently 'like' a 'block' and excludes those that are not," "nothing in the intrinsic record offers 'objective boundaries' for ascertaining whether a given shape falls into either category," and expert failed to provide evidence supporting his opinion that it was a term of art in structural engineering field

  8. In re Wright

    866 F.2d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 31 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that fact that exact words in question are not in specification is "not important"

  9. Merrill v. Yeomans

    94 U.S. 568 (1876)   Cited 160 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a distinct claim is “of primary importance, in the effort to ascertain precisely what it is that is patented”

  10. Application of Steele

    305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,412 times   1063 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,165 times   492 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 310 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting addition of "new matter"

  15. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  16. 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"

  17. 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

  18. Section 144 - Decision on appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 144   Cited 84 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Stating that this court's mandate shall govern further proceedings before the Office

  19. 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

  20. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  21. 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