§

Ex Parte Ausserlechner et al

12613376 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2017)
Ex Parte Ausserlechner et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 615 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Nystrom v. Trex Co.

    424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 303 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the law of the regional circuit governs motions for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

  3. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  4. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group International, Inc.

    222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 212 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the public is entitled to rely on the patentee's representations in the prosecution history concerning the scope and meaning of the claims

  5. Centocor Ortho Biotech v. Abbott Lab

    636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 71 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims invalid for inadequate written description and reversing the denial of a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law

  6. In re Alton

    76 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when the examiner alleges that the claimed embodiment is outside the scope of the specification, he "need only establish this fact to make out a prima facie case"

  7. 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

  8. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 29 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  9. Application of Heinle

    342 F.2d 1001 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 15 times
    Reversing Patent Office Board of Appeals double patenting rejection of claims to a single element E based on a patent claim to a combination of A, B, C, D, and E

  10. Application of Olson

    212 F.2d 590 (C.C.P.A. 1954)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6045. March 23, 1954. Rehearing Denied May 24, 1954. Andrew E. Carlsen, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant. E.L. Reynolds, Washington, D.C. (H.S. Miller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON, Judges. O'CONNELL, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office sustaining the action of the Primary Examiner in rejecting claims 24 to 27, inclusive, of appellant's

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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)