§

Ex Parte 6591353 et al

95001169 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2013)
Ex Parte 6591353 et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG

    318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 160 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general statement introducing new limitations does not limit scope of claims not amended to include the new limitations

  2. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.

    464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 134 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding based on the record that "[t]he presence of certain secondary considerations of nonobviousness are insufficient as a matter of law to overcome our conclusion that the evidence only supports a legal conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious"

  3. Rambus Inc. v. Rea

    731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 69 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board erred when it found objective evidence lacked a nexus where at least some of the evidence related to the "patented design as a whole"

  4. In re Watts

    354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 77 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding patent holder waived new argument on the scope of the prior art never raised to the PTAB

  5. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 94 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  6. In re Rambus Inc.

    694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 38 times
    Finding support for a broad construction of a claim term by referencing claims in related patents in the patent family

  7. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  8. Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc.

    628 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Treating motions for summary judgment as implicitly requesting relief from the court's case management orders

  9. Rambus Inc. v. Rea

    527 F. App'x 902 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    2012-1480 06-28-2013 RAMBUS INC., Appellant, v. Teresa Stanek Rea, ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee. JOHN M. WHEALAN, of Chevy Chase, Maryland, argued for appellant. Of counsel on the brief were JEFFREY A. LAMKEN and MICHAEL G. PATTILLO, JR., MoloLamken, LLP, of Washington, DC; and KARA F. STOLL, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC. COKE M. STEWART, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark

  10. McNeely v. Courtley

    560 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

    2014-1408 05-30-2014 JERRY WAYNE MCNEELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RONALD COURTLEY, TROOPER HODGSON, SGT THOMPSON, JOHN DOE, 1-3, MICHIGAN STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, KENNETH ROMANOWSKI, RAYMOND V. MCCLARITY, EARL FISHER AND PATRICK WARREN, Defendants-Appellees. PER CURIAM NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in No. 2:13-cv-13790-DPH-DRG, Judge Denise Page Hood. Before RADER, Chief Judge

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   447 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."

  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 41.77 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.77   Cited 16 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse each decision of the examiner on all issues raised on each appealed claim, or remand the reexamination proceeding to the examiner for further consideration. The reversal of the examiner's determination not to make a rejection proposed by the third party requester constitutes a decision adverse to the patentability of the claims which are subject to that proposed rejection which will be set forth in the decision of the Patent

  14. Section 1.956 - Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.956   Cited 1 times

    The time for taking any action by a patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for such extension must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, but in no case will the mere filing of a request effect any extension. Any request for such extension must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g) . See § 1.304(a) for extensions of time for filing a

  15. Section 1.943 - Requirements of responses, written comments, and briefs in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.943

    (a) The form of responses, written comments, briefs, appendices, and other papers must be in accordance with the requirements of § 1.52 . (b) Responses by the patent owner and written comments by the third party requester shall not exceed 50 pages in length, excluding amendments, appendices of claims, and reference materials such as prior art references. (c) Appellant's briefs filed by the patent owner and the third party requester shall not exceed thirty pages or 14,000 words in length, excluding