§

Ex Parte 7910833 et al

95002365 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)
Ex Parte 7910833 et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,854 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. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  3. In re Huang

    100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 94 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the inventor's opinion as to the purchaser's reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus

  4. Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC

    742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]n claim construction, this court gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification"

  5. Belkin Int'l, Inc. v. Kappos

    696 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Belkin International, Inc. v. Kappos, 696 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012), this court explained the § 312(c) non-appealability bar (under slightly different earlier language) as follows: "[A]n inter partes reexamination is a two-step process.

  6. Q.I. Press Controls v. Lee

    752 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that in the context of a reexamination "the Board [of Patent Appeals and Interferences] has the discretion to issue a new ground of rejection if it has knowledge of one"

  7. In re De Blauwe

    736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 84-513. June 8, 1984. Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Pasadena, Cal., argued for appellants. John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge. JACK R. MILLER, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from that part of the decision of the

  8. Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee

    2012-1630 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 9, 2014)   2 Legal Analyses

    2012-1630 2012-1631 06-09-2014 Q. I. PRESS CONTROLS, B.V., Appellant, v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Appellee, AND QUAD/TECH, INC., Cross-Appellant. DAVID D. LANGFITT, Locks Law Firm, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for appellant. SYDNEY O. JOHNSON, JR., Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual

  9. Nix v. Hedden

    149 U.S. 304 (1893)   Cited 55 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that tomatoes are vegetables, rather than fruits, because tomatoes are vegetables "in the common language of the people"

  10. APPLICATION OF BOON

    439 F.2d 724 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 8398. April 1, 1971. Rehearing Denied May 20, 1971. James M. Heilman, Heilman Heilman, Washington, D.C., attorney 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 NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. BALDWIN, Judge. Boon appeals from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the rejection

  11. 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 117 times   16 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"

  12. 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

  13. Section 41.30 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.30   1 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in § 41.2 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart unless otherwise clear from the context: Applicant means either the applicant in a national application for a patent or the applicant in an application for reissue of a patent. Evidence means something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact, except that for the purpose of this subpart Evidence does not include