§

Ex Parte 7,506,190 B2 et al

90013293 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)
Ex Parte 7,506,190 B2 et al

5 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,729 times   164 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. Thomas v. Pippin

    628 F. App'x 766 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

    2015-1575 2015-1577 2015-1578 2015-1579 01-15-2016 C. DOUGLASS THOMAS, ALAN E. THOMAS, Appellants v. JACK D. PIPPIN, Appellee C. DOUGLASS THOMAS, IPVenture, Los Altos, CA, argued for appellants. MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by WILLIAM F. LEE, ERIC FLETCHER; BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, WILLIAM G. MCELWAIN, Washington, DC; WILLIAM N. HUGHET, ROBERT DANNY HUNTINGTON, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., Washington

  3. In re Deckler

    977 F.2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a losing priority judgment in an interference proceeding bars the loser from obtaining a patent containing claims that are patentably indistinguishable from the claims corresponding to the lost count

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,063 times   459 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."

  5. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences