§

Christopher Ihara

14959987 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2020)
Christopher Ihara

20 Cited authorities

  1. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    525 U.S. 55 (1998)   Cited 430 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the invention must be ready for patenting" to trigger the on-sale bar

  2. Allen Engineering v. Bartell Industries

    299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 507 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite

  3. Labounty Mfg., v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    958 F.2d 1066 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that claims for "inequitable conduct," which arise when applicants or their attorneys breach their duty of candor to the patent office, must be proved by challenging party by clear and convincing evidence

  4. Polara Eng'g Inc. v. Campbell Co.

    894 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 46 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant Campbell's decision to continue sales "was among the 'totality of the circumstances' that was appropriately considered by the jury to assess the egregiousness of Campbell's conduct"

  5. EZ Dock v. Schafer Systems, Inc.

    276 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying summary judgment where public use of a dock, sold to a customer, might be experimental where the location of the dock had different conditions than that of the prototype

  6. Atlanta v. Leggett

    516 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the on-sale bar applied where a patent holder “presented a commercial offer for sale of [its] invention en masse”

  7. Clock Spring v. Wrapmaster

    560 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that "[f]or a challenger to prove a patent claim invalid under § 102(b), the record must show by clear and convincing evidence that the claimed invention was in public use before the patent's critical date."

  8. Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

    365 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person other than the inventor must use the claimed invention to qualify as a public use

  9. Western Marine Electronics v. Furuno Elec

    764 F.2d 840 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 32 times
    Affirming where appellant claimed district court's denial of attorney fees were based on the erroneous belief that § 285 sanctions were mutually exclusive from Rule 37 sanctions for discovery abuse

  10. In re Brigance

    792 F.2d 1103 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 29 times

    Appeal No. 85-2561. June 4, 1986. Charles Hieken, Boston, Mass., argued, for appellant. John W. Dewhirst, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him, on brief, were Joseph F. Nakamura, Solicitor and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Solicitor. Appeal from the Patent Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before DAVIS, SMITH, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. In this patent case

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,418 times   1066 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 6,172 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 6,030 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 99 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 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)

  17. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 9 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence

  18. Section 41.33 - Amendments and affidavits or other Evidence after appeal

    37 C.F.R. § 41.33   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Amendments filed after the date of filing an appeal pursuant to § 41.31(a)(1) through (a)(3) and prior to the date a brief is filed pursuant to § 41.37 may be admitted as provided in § 1.116 of this title. (b) Amendments filed on or after the date of filing a brief pursuant to § 41.37 may be admitted: (1) To cancel claims, where such cancellation does not affect the scope of any other pending claim in the proceeding, or (2) To rewrite dependent claims into independent form. (c) All other amendments

  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