§

Ex Parte Cartier et al

10909768 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2009)
Ex Parte Cartier et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    525 U.S. 55 (1998)   Cited 427 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the invention must be ready for patenting" to trigger the on-sale bar

  2. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.

    793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 272 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sales of product with instructions to use product in an infringing manner may constitute circumstantial evidence that customers would use the product in the manner directed

  3. UMC Electronics Co. v. United States

    816 F.2d 647 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 106 times
    Stating the on-sale bar "does not lend itself to formulation into a set of precise requirements"

  4. D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp.

    714 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 89 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a sale by a patentee or an assignee of a product made by a claimed method before the critical date results in a "forfeiture" of any right to a patent to that method, even though the sale of the product did not reveal anything about the method to the public

  5. In re Smith

    714 F.2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 78 times
    Adding that the purpose of market testing is "commercial exploitation and not experimentation"

  6. A.B. Chance Co. v. RTE Corp.

    854 F.2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In A.B. Chance Co. v. RTE Corp., 854 F.2d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the court ruled that the district court needed to decide whether the party engaged in inequitable conduct before it denied exceptional case status and hence attorneys' fees to the moving party.

  7. Egbert v. Lippmann

    104 U.S. 333 (1881)   Cited 132 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding patent was publicly accessible when the inventor gave his invention of corset springs to a lady friend, who wore them for a long time "without limitation or restriction, or injunction of secrecy."

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 times   478 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,991 times   1000 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. 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"

  11. 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

  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 1.105 - Requirements for information

    37 C.F.R. § 1.105   Cited 16 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, including a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c) , or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example: (i)Commercial databases: The