§

Ex Parte Anand et al

13440793 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017)
Ex Parte Anand et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Honeywell International Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp.

    488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " breach of duty [of candor] — including affirmative misrepresentations of material facts, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information — coupled with an intent to deceive, constitutes inequitable conduct"

  2. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 149 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

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

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 87 times   1 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

  4. Singh v. Brake

    317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times
    Ruling that a laboratory notebook entry did not corroborate an alleged conception because "[e]ven if the entry expressed the problem, it did not provide the solution"

  5. Taskett v. Dentlinger

    344 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Taskett, the issue was whether the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in concluding that the junior party, Dentlinger, had reduced to practice the limitation "obtaining financial authorization" when the record indicated that Dentlinger had not commercially tested that feature of his invention.

  6. Application of Borkowski

    505 F.2d 713 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-564. November 27, 1974. Rehearing Denied January 23, 1975. Barry A. Bisson, Wilmington, Del., attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 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."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,942 times   958 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  9. 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"

  10. 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

  11. Section 104 - Repealed

    35 U.S.C. § 104   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses

    35 U.S.C. § 104 Pub. L. 112-29, §3(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 287 Section, act July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 798; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 94-131, §6, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 691; Pub. L. 98-622, title IV, §403(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3392; Pub. L. 103-182, title III, §331, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2113; Pub. L. 103-465, title V, §531(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4982; Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat

  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 116 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"

  13. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)