§

David Crowther

14697760 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)
David Crowther

15 Cited authorities

  1. Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB

    892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[v]iewed individually, the specific examples of vexatious conduct recited by the district court [were] somewhat tenuous," but "when viewed together, we cannot say that the district court's finding of vexatious litigation was clearly erroneous"

  2. In re Mouttet

    686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 91 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding "the Board's determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence"

  3. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc.

    935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 150 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a party who chooses not to cross-examine a witness on an issue cannot later "recoup for its failed litigation strategy"

  4. In re Etter

    756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that whether one prior art reference can be incorporated into another is "basically irrelevant."

  5. In re Merck Co., Inc.

    800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person of skill in the art would have expected amitriptyline to resemble imipramine in the alleviation of depression in humans because of the drugs’ close structural similarity and similar use

  6. Application of Rinehart

    531 F.2d 1048 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 45 times
    Considering the problem to be solved in a determination of obviousness

  7. Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp.

    748 F.2d 645 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that preamble alone was not admission that inventor's own prior work is prior art because "obviousness should not be based on an implied admission erroneously creating imaginary prior art," quoting In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 910 (C.C.PA. 1979)

  8. Application of Ratti

    270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 18 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6452. September 30, 1959. Cromwell, Greist Warden, Chicago, Ill. (Raymond L. Greist, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for 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 the

  9. Application of Dailey

    357 F.2d 669 (C.C.P.A. 1966)

    Patent Appeal No. 7491. March 24, 1966. John Rex Allen, Chicago, Ill. (Richard S. Phillips, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND. Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 25-28 in appellants' application for "Nursing Container

  10. Application of Rose

    220 F.2d 459 (C.C.P.A. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6080. March 22, 1955. J. Preston Swecker, Washington, D.C. (William L. Mathis, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (H.S. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY and COLE, Judges. JOHNSON, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the holding of the Primary Examiner rejecting as unpatentable

  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 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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)