§

Bhagat, Urvashi

13877847 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2020)
Bhagat, Urvashi

19 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,572 times   188 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.)

    676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 315 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”

  3. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 90 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  4. 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"

  5. Yorkey v. Diab

    601 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 29 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board is "well within its discretion" to give more or less credibility to expert testimony unless "no reasonable trier of fact could have done so"

  6. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  7. In re Ngai

    367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that allowing claims where the printed matter was the only novel contribution would allow "anyone [to] continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product"

  8. In re Kemps

    97 F.3d 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 13 times
    Upholding board's fact finding under less deferential standard of review obviated need for deciding propriety of using the APA standards

  9. In re Corkill

    771 F.2d 1496 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Affirming obviousness rejection of claims in light of prior art teaching that "hydrated zeolites will work" in detergent formulations, even though "the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among 'thousands' of compounds"

  10. Application of Borkowski

    505 F.2d 713 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-564. November 27, 1974. Rehearing Denied January 23, 1975. Barry A. Bisson, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,413 times   1065 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 6,169 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 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

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

  14. Section 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 52 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  15. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  16. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A

  17. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by

  18. Section 41.3 - Petitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.3   Cited 3 times   33 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deciding official. Petitions must be addressed to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. A panel or an administrative patent judge may certify a question of policy to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge for decision. The Chief Administrative Patent Judge may delegate authority to decide petitions. (b)Scope. This section covers petitions on matters pending before the Board (§§ 41.35 , 41.64 , 41.103 , and 41.205 ); otherwise, see §§ 1.181 to 1.183 of this title. The following matters are not

  19. 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