§

DRESSMAN et al. V. Berka et al.

12361690 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2013)
DRESSMAN et al. V. Berka et al.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  2. Sandt Technology v. Resco Metal and Plast

    264 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 171 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is a heavy burden to “introduce clear and convincing evidence on all issues relating to the status of a particular reference as prior art”

  3. Singh v. Brake

    222 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the "concern that a party claiming inventorship might be tempted to describe his actions in an unjustifiably self-serving manner in order to obtain a patent or to maintain an existing patent"

  4. In re Garner

    508 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2007-1221. Interference No. 105,455. December 5, 2007. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Anthony A. Tomaselli, Quarles Brady LLP, of Madison, Wisconsin, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Kristin Graham Noel, and Nicholas J. Seay. Thomas L. Stoll, Associate Solicitor, Solicitor's Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Stephen Walsh

  5. Mikus v. Wachtel

    542 F.2d 1157 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that an invention record, based on an unwitnessed laboratory notebook and results performed by technicians unaware of what they were testing, may provide sufficient evidence of conception but not reduction to practice under the rule of reason

  6. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,020 times   1020 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  7. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  8. Section 10 - Publications

    35 U.S.C. § 10   Cited 1 times

    (a) The Director may publish in printed, typewritten, or electronic form, the following: 1. Patents and published applications for patents, including specifications and drawings, together with copies of the same. The Patent and Trademark Office may print the headings of the drawings for patents for the purpose of photolithography. 2. Certificates of trade-mark registrations, including statements and drawings, together with copies of the same. 3. The Official Gazette of the United States Patent and

  9. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal