§

Ex Parte Aarestad et al

12838669 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)
Ex Parte Aarestad et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,354 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Energizer Holdings v. Int'l Trade Com'n

    435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 170 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an antecedent basis can be present by implication"

  3. Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.

    274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecution history estoppel did not apply because claim limitation had been amended but not narrowed during prosecution of patent

  4. Credle v. Bond

    25 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that “grammatical structure and syntax” of the claim can be important evidence for claim construction

  5. Application of Gardner

    427 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8311. June 25, 1970. Arthur R. Eglington, attorney of record for appellants, George J. Harding, 3rd, Joan S. Keps, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, Leroy B. Randall, Jack Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent

  6. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,287 times   1030 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  7. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

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

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 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