§

Ex Parte Blum et al

09994860 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)
Ex Parte Blum et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S

    108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 338 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement

  2. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 333 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  3. Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices

    977 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 191 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even where the infringer had not yet begun to actually sell the infringing product, "losses incurred upon announcement by [the infringer] of the infringing activity may be included [in lost profits damages], when the losses are found to be reasonably related to the infringing activity"

  4. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    418 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 104 times
    Affirming finding that inventors honestly failed to appreciate materiality of information they did not disclose to PTO

  5. National Recovery v. Magnetic Sep. Sys

    166 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the facts of that case, the dependent claims were invalid solely because their independent claim was invalid

  6. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.

    349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 78 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no material misrepresentation in part because a PTO examiner's reasons for allowance did not reflect that the PTO relied on the allegedly false applicant statements

  7. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  8. In re Brana

    51 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 42 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent applicants had established the utility of claimed therapeutic compounds by presenting in vitro test results and evidence of structural similarity to therapeutically useful compounds

  9. Application of Langer

    503 F.2d 1380 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 9239. October 3, 1974. Bernd W. Sandt and Theodore Post, Midland, Mich., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection

  10. Application of Gaubert

    524 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 75-574. November 13, 1975. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, R. V. Lupo, Associate Solicitor, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Associate Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge. ALMOND, Senior Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals affirming the rejections of claims 1 and 2

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,278 times   1023 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 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,400 times   2189 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  13. 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"

  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 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   13 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057, Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  16. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  17. 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)