§

Ex Parte 7287109 et al

95001166 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 1, 2011)
Ex Parte 7287109 et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.

    90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,398 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"

  2. Liebel-Flarsheim Company v. Medrad, Inc.

    358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,335 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms are given the full breadth of their ordinary meaning unless a clear disavowal of scope is stated in the specification

  3. Scimed Life Sys. v. Adv. Cardiovascular

    242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 870 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that description of "present invention" in specification is limiting on claim

  4. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.

    848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 748 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of routine business practice can be used to prove that a reference was accessible

  5. Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 338 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim term "relatively small" is not indefinite

  6. Edwards Lifesciences v. Cook

    582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 182 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "graft" was to be construed more narrowly as "intraluminal graft" because the only devices described in the specification were intraluminal and because the specification repeatedly referred to intraluminal grafts as "the present invention"

  7. In re Gleave

    560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 150 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”

  8. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG

    318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 161 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general statement introducing new limitations does not limit scope of claims not amended to include the new limitations

  9. Application of Nomiya

    509 F.2d 566 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 74-514. February 6, 1975. Paul M. Craig, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; R. V. Lupo, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-8 and 33

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 555 times   901 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  12. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Section 1.956 - Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.956   Cited 1 times

    The time for taking any action by a patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for such extension must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, but in no case will the mere filing of a request effect any extension. Any request for such extension must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g) . See § 1.304(a) for extensions of time for filing a