§

Ex Parte 6681652 et al

95000045 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2009)
Ex Parte 6681652 et al

24 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,885 times   168 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. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 975 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  3. Watts v. XL Systems, Inc.

    232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 508 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee's representation about claim language limits that language even if it is later deleted and added elsewhere

  4. Superguide Corp. v. Directv Enterprises

    358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 308 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party "waived its right to assert a construction other than 'matches or equals' for the term 'meet'" because it agreed to that construction in its briefs

  5. Lighting World v. Birchwood Lighting

    382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 268 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"

  6. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 287 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not apply to the term “detent mechanism,” because “the noun ‘detent’ denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are expressed in functional terms.”

  7. Ma. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Soft

    462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 188 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is appropriate for us to look to dictionary definitions of the terms" where "the specification does not define the term" and "the most that can be said is that the specification is not inconsistent" with the proposed constructions by the parties

  8. Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc.

    174 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 203 times
    Holding a claim recited sufficient structure where the limitation was "positioning means" and the claim "provid[ed] a list of the structure underlying the means"

  9. E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp.

    343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 127 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "court's task is not to limit claim language to exclude particular devices because they do no serve a perceived 'purpose' of the invention. Rather, the district court's function is to interpret claims according to their plain language unless the patentee has chosen to be his own lexicographer in the specification or has clearly disclaimed coverage during prosecution. An invention may possess a number of advantages or purposes, and there is no requirement that every claim directed to that invention be limited to encompass all of them."

  10. Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.

    550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that means plus function claims are interpreted with reference to, and as limited by, the related structure disclosed in the patent for performing the function recited in the claim, or the equivalents thereof

  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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1027 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 554 times   898 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  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 1.983 - Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.983   Cited 2 times

    (a) The patent owner or third party requester in an inter partes reexamination proceeding who is a party to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may, subject to § 41.81 , appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and may be a party to any appeal thereto taken from a reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (b) The appellant must take the following steps in such an appeal: