§

Ex Parte Carcamo et al

12122476 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)
Ex Parte Carcamo et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  3. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  4. Okajima v. Bourdeau

    261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing how the prior art typically informs the question of the level of one of ordinary skill

  5. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc.

    549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977)   Cited 21 times

    No. 76-1044. Heard June 16, 1976. Decided February 3, 1977. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 17, 1977. Irving Powers, John K. Roedel, Jr. St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Raymond J. McElhannon, Norman H. Zivin, Clyde H. Haynes, New York City, William T. Rifkin, Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Before SWYGERT, CUMMINGS and PELL, Circuit Judges. SWYGERT, Circuit Judge. The outcome of this appeal turns on the validity

  6. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works

    150 U.S. 164 (1893)   Cited 23 times
    In Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164, 170, 14 S.Ct. 68, 70, 37 L.Ed. 1039 (1843), the Court held that the casting of a stone grate in one piece, which was formerly cast in two pieces, did not rise to the level of an invention.

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,061 times   453 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 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

  9. Section 6 - Time and occasions for display

    4 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 1 times

    (a) It is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However, when a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed 24 hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness. (b) The flag should be hoisted briskly and lowered ceremoniously. (c) The flag should not be displayed on days when the weather is inclement, except when an all weather flag is displayed. (d) The flag should be displayed on all

  10. 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)