§

Ex Parte Campbell et al

11507979 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2012)
Ex Parte Campbell et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.

    138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,577 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction was purely a matter of law and therefore subject to de novo review

  2. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve

    256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 670 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a party cannot change the scope of its claim construction on appeal, it is not precluded “from proffering additional or new supporting arguments, based on evidence of record, for its claim construction”

  3. Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Lab. Corp.

    161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 374 times
    Holding that trial court can hear extrinsic evidence to educate itself about patent and relevant technology, but may not use extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict claim terms

  4. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

    463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 203 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

  5. Boehringer Ingelheim v. Schering-Plough

    320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the court "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party . . . disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury was not required to believe"

  6. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.

    112 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that in construing the count, the court "must look at the language as a whole and consider the grammatical structure and syntax"

  7. Vehicular Technologies Corp. v. Titan Wheel International, Inc.

    212 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a fact issue is not in genuine dispute if a reasonable jury could only find in favor of the moving party

  8. 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"

  9. In re Stencel

    828 F.2d 751 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 33 times
    Noting that "such [non-limiting] statements often, although not necessarily, appear in the claim's preamble"

  10. Application of Venner

    262 F.2d 91 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6391. December 19, 1958. John H. Bruninga, St. Louis, Mo., and Richard G. Radue, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office affirming the final rejection by the examiner of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 13 and

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  12. Section 1.136 - 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)

  13. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by