Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Ex Parte 7340506 et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University

    212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 381 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”

  3. 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

  4. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

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

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 90 times   2 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

  6. In re Bigio

    381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 71 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Affirming conclusion that toothbrush and small hair brush were in same field of endeavor because "the structural similarities between toothbrushes and small brushes for hair would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the specific field of hairbrushes to consider all similar brushes including toothbrushes"

  7. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  8. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  9. Hyatt v. Doll

    576 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    No. 2007-1066. August 11, 2009. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., J. Kenneth C. Bass, III, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein Fox P.L.L.C., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief were Wilma A. Lewis and Michael I. Coe, Crowell Moring LLP, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief was Gregory L. Roth, Law Offices of Gregory L. Roth, of La Palma, CA. Of counsel was Michael L. Martinez, Crowell Moring LLP, of Washington

  10. Matter of Bailey

    17 B.R. 50 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1981)   Cited 2 times

    Bankruptcy No. HA-81-19. Adv. No. 81-475. October 15, 1981. As Amended October 21, 1981. Richard Nelson, Harrison, Ark., for plaintiff. Ronald D. Young, Harrison, Ark., for defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL JUDGMENT DENYING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF AN ALLEGED PREFERENCE DENNIS J. STEWART, Bankruptcy Judge. The plaintiff trustee in bankruptcy seeks to recover an alleged preference conferred upon the defendant in the sum of $4,005.84. The defendant contends that

  11. 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

  12. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 118 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  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 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

  16. Section 41.73 - Oral hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.73

    (a) An oral hearing should be requested only in those circumstances in which an appellant or a respondent considers such a hearing necessary or desirable for a proper presentation of the appeal. An appeal decided on the briefs without an oral hearing will receive the same consideration by the Board as an appeal decided after an oral hearing. (b) If an appellant or a respondent desires an oral hearing, he or she must file, as a separate paper captioned "REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING," a written request