§

Ex Parte 6643765 et al

95000089 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 2010)
Ex Parte 6643765 et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,882 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Southwest Software Inc. v. Harlequin Inc.

    226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 84 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certificate of correction is not effective for causes of action arising before its issuance

  3. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  4. Application of Wertheim

    541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 81 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others"

  5. In re Anderson

    471 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 19 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8837. January 26, 1973. S. Augustus Demma, New York City, attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the Patent Office Board of Appeals decision affirming the rejection of claims 1-10, all claims of application serial No. 642,294, filed May

  6. In re Vincent

    4 B.R. 21 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1979)   Cited 5 times
    Holding Bankruptcy Code does not permit payment of personal expenses from property of the estate

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,165 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."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. 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

  10. Section 306 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 306   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete

  11. Section 1.77 - Arrangement of application elements

    37 C.F.R. § 1.77   Cited 8 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) The elements of the application, if applicable, should appear in the following order: (1) Utility application transmittal form. (2) Fee transmittal form. (3) Application data sheet (see § 1.76 ). (4) Specification. (5) Drawings. (6) The inventor's oath or declaration. (b) The specification should include the following sections in order: (1) Title of the invention, which may be accompanied by an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant (unless included

  12. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by

  13. Section 1.96 - Submission of computer program listings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.96

    (a)General. Descriptions of the operation and general content of computer program listings should appear in the description portion of the specification. A computer program listing for the purpose of this section is defined as a document that lists, in appropriate sequence, the instructions, routines, and other contents of a program for a computer. The program listing may be either in machine or machine-independent (object or source) language that will cause a computer to perform a desired procedure