§

Chrysal International BV

2020005001 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2020)
Chrysal International BV

14 Cited authorities

  1. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 94 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of JMOL of lack of written description

  2. Bilstad v. Wakalopulos

    386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 61 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of "plurality" of the Board of Patent Appeals

  3. Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc.

    771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that safety features "serially mentioned as part of the broader disclosure" did not amount to an explicit and unequivocal disclosure

  4. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

  5. Hyosung TNS Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    926 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that the activities encompassed by section 337 "must pertain to products covered by the asserted patent"

  6. Scriptpro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc.

    762 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that compliance with the written description requirement, while a question of fact, may be decided on summary judgment if no reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the nonmovant

  7. Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC

    926 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 8 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Forum, original claims were directed to a "workpiece machining implement" that required a "plurality of arbors supported by the body member" so as to allow the member to rotate along different axes.

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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

  9. 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."

  10. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  11. 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"

  12. 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

  13. 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)

  14. 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