§

Ex Parte 6940751 et al

95001495 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)
Ex Parte 6940751 et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. New Hampshire v. Maine

    532 U.S. 742 (2001)   Cited 4,680 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

  2. Russell v. Rolfs

    893 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 473 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that estoppel applies where a party makes an assertion in a legal proceeding that directly contradicts an earlier assertion

  3. Minnesota Min. Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.

    303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 288 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that supplying potentially infringing products along with instructions for infringing use was sufficient to infer intent

  4. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 149 times
    Finding that the prior art reference was enabling and stating that “the fact that [the reference] provides ‘no understanding of which of the targets would be useful’ is of no import, because [the patent applicant] admits that it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to make any oligodeoxynucleotide sequence”

  5. Linear Technology v. International Trade

    566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that a decision based on "[i]nconsistent" rulings and "contradictory statement" was not supported by substantial evidence

  6. In re Swanson

    540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 58 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the scope of an examiner's prior consideration of a reference is a question of fact

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,017 times   1017 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. 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

  9. Section 41.79 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.79   Cited 5 times

    (a) Parties to the appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: (1) The original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a) , (2) The original § 41.77(b) decision under the provisions of § 41.77(b)(2) , (3) The expiration of the time for the owner to take action under § 41.77(b)(2) , or (4) The new decision of the Board under § 41.77(f) . (b) (1) The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked

  10. Section 1.933 - Patent owner duty of disclosure in inter partes reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.933   Cited 1 times

    (a) Each individual associated with the patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding as set forth in § 1.555(a) and (b) . The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability in an inter partes reexamination proceeding is deemed to be satisfied by filing