§

Ex Parte 7034083 et al

90008491 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)
Ex Parte 7034083 et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff

    758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 134 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a stay for purposes of reexamination is within the district court's discretion

  2. 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

  3. In re NTP, Inc.

    654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 49 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "priority can be considered and determined during reexamination proceedings," which are governed by similar statutory language

  4. In re Portola Packaging Inc.

    110 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the reexamination improper where the rejection was based on old art even though the reexamination was originally instituted using new art

  5. In re Recreative Technologies Corp.

    83 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 18 times

    95-1337 (Reexamination No. 90/002,613) DECIDED May 13, 1996 Timothy J. Martin, Timothy J. Martin, P.C., of Lakewood, Colorado, argued for appellant. James T. Carmichael, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. Nancy J. Linck, Solicitor, Albin F. Drost, Deputy Solicitor and Murriel E. Crawford, Associate Solicitor, Office of Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, were on the brief for appellee. James A. Lowe and Sandeep Seth, of Denver, Colorado, were on the brief for Amicus

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,154 times   485 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."

  7. Section 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 305   Cited 175 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"

  8. Section 303 - Determination of issue by Director

    35 U.S.C. § 303   Cited 123 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Governing ex parte reexamination

  9. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  10. Section 1.116 - Amendments and affidavits or other evidence after final action and prior to appeal

    37 C.F.R. § 1.116   Cited 53 times   36 Legal Analyses

    (a) An amendment after final action must comply with § 1.114 or this section. (b) After a final rejection or other final action (§ 1.113 ) in an application or in an ex parte reexamination filed under § 1.510 , or an action closing prosecution (§ 1.949 ) in an inter partes reexamination filed under § 1.913 , but before or on the same date of filing an appeal (§ 41.31 or § 41.61 of this title): (1) An amendment may be made canceling claims or complying with any requirement of form expressly set forth

  11. Section 41.3 - Petitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.3   Cited 3 times   33 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deciding official. Petitions must be addressed to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. A panel or an administrative patent judge may certify a question of policy to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge for decision. The Chief Administrative Patent Judge may delegate authority to decide petitions. (b)Scope. This section covers petitions on matters pending before the Board (§§ 41.35 , 41.64 , 41.103 , and 41.205 ); otherwise, see §§ 1.181 to 1.183 of this title. The following matters are not