§

Ex Parte Al-Mulhim et al

13628305 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2017)
Ex Parte Al-Mulhim et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Net Moneyin v. Verisign

    545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 283 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

  2. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  3. In re Self

    671 F.2d 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    Appeal No. 81-542. February 18, 1982. Rehearing Denied April 22, 1982. Roland T. Bryan, Stamford, Conn., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board)

  4. Application of Hughes

    52 C.C.P.A. 1355 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 20 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7312. May 20, 1965. John A. Blair, Detroit, Mich., C. Willard Hayes, Washington, D.C., Everett R. Casey, Detroit, Mich., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. SMITH, Judge. Claims 1-16 of appellant's application stand rejected, and the threshold question is, on what ground? Neither the examiner nor the Board of Appeals

  5. Application of Brink

    419 F.2d 914 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8239. January 15, 1970. Richard W. Sternberg, Roger R. Jones, St. Louis, Mo., attys. of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection

  6. Application of Turlay

    304 F.2d 893 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6816. July 25, 1962. George H. Willits, Alexander F. Baillio, Lewis D. Burch Doonan Dwight McGraw, Detroit, Mich. (Frank J. Soucek, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated

  7. In re Cramblet

    62 F.2d 358 (C.C.P.A. 1932)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3030. December 27, 1932. Appeal from Board of Patent Appeals. Application for patent by Paul K. Cramblet. Certain claims were rejected by the Examiner of Patents and by the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, and applicant appeals. Decision of Board of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part. John W. Michael, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,157 times   488 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,022 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  11. 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

  12. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  13. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)