§

Ex Parte 7080301 et al

95001579 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014)
Ex Parte 7080301 et al

18 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,819 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. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 144 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  3. North American Vaccine v. American Cyanamid

    7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 175 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent is presumed valid and party attacking patent has burden of proving facts by clear and convincing evidence

  4. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  5. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  6. In re Hallman

    655 F.2d 212 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    Appeal No. 81-524. July 16, 1981. Harry V. Strampel, Wallenstein, Spangenberg, Hattis Strampel, Sidney W. Russell, Arlington, Va., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., for Board of Appeals. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals ("board") sustaining the Examiner's rejection

  7. Application of Willis

    455 F.2d 1060 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8641. March 2, 1972. Marion C. Staves, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and ROSENSTEIN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration,

  8. Application of Riddle

    438 F.2d 618 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8457. March 11, 1971. Karl A. Limbach, John P. Sutton, Limbach, Limbach Sutton, San Francisco, Cal., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FORD, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection

  9. Application of Margaroli

    318 F.2d 348 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6989. June 20, 1963. Frank A. Neal, Naylor Neal, San Francisco, Cal., James L. Dooley, Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 of appellants'

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 times   479 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,991 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  13. 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

  14. Section 1.947 - Comments by third party requester to patent owner's response in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.947   Cited 4 times

    Each time the patent owner files a response to an Office action on the merits pursuant to § 1.945 , a third party requester may once file written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. These comments shall be limited to issues raised by the Office action or the patent owner's response. The time for submitting comments by the third party requester may not be extended. For the purpose of filing the written comments by the third party requester,

  15. Section 1.951 - Options after Office action closing prosecution in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.951   Cited 4 times

    (a) After an Office action closing prosecution in an inter partes reexamination, the patent owner may once file comments limited to the issues raised in the Office action closing prosecution. The comments can include a proposed amendment to the claims, which amendment will be subject to the criteria of § 1.116 as to whether or not it shall be admitted. The comments must be filed within the time set for response in the Office action closing prosecution. (b) When the patent owner does file comments

  16. Section 41.67 - Appellant's brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.67   Cited 2 times

    (a) (1) Appellant(s) may once, within time limits for filing set forth in § 41.66 , file a brief and serve the brief on all other parties to the proceeding in accordance with § 1.903 of this title. (2) The brief must be signed by the appellant, or the appellant's duly authorized attorney or agent and must be accompanied by the requisite fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(2) . (b) An appellant's appeal shall stand dismissed upon failure of that appellant to file an appellant's brief, accompanied by the requisite

  17. Section 41.68 - Respondent's brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.68

    (a) (1) Respondent(s) in an appeal may once, within the time limit for filing set forth in § 41.66 , file a respondent brief and serve the brief on all parties in accordance with § 1.903 of this title. (2) The brief must be signed by the party, or the party's duly authorized attorney or agent, and must be accompanied by the requisite fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(2) . (3) The respondent brief shall be limited to issues raised in the appellant brief to which the respondent brief is directed. (4) A requester's

  18. Section 41.71 - Rebuttal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.71

    (a) Within one month of the examiner's answer, any appellant may once file a rebuttal brief. (b) (1) The rebuttal brief of the owner may be directed to the examiner's answer and/or any respondent brief. (2) The rebuttal brief of the owner shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or an affidavit or other evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence filed after final action but before or on the same date of filing an appeal and § 41.63 for amendments