§

Ex Parte Comstock et al

09871111 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2012)
Ex Parte Comstock et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Herbert v. National Academy of Sciences

    974 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,139 times
    Holding that on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), a court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, and disputed facts in the record that have been resolved by the district court

  2. Boehringer Ingelheim v. Schering-Plough

    320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 130 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"

  3. McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharmaceuticals

    800 F.2d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1986)   Cited 132 times
    Holding arguments first raised in reply brief are forfeited

  4. In re Watts

    354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 77 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding patent holder waived new argument on the scope of the prior art never raised to the PTAB

  5. Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc.

    807 F.2d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 95 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where all claims of the reexamined patent are "in the category of a 'proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated following a reexaminationproceeding,'" "the patentee has no rights to enforce [a non-identical, amended claim] before the date of reissue because the original patent was surrendered and is dead" (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 252) (first emphasis added)

  6. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.

    469 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 31 times
    Affirming the district court's holding of invalidity despite the court's statement that “[t]here is no indication that the [motivation to combine] was non-obvious,” because the district court's opinion as a whole indicated it “correctly allocated the burden of proof”

  7. Carbino v. West

    168 F.3d 32 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 23 times
    Explaining that under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a reply brief should "reply to the brief of the appellee" and "is not the appropriate place to raise, for the first time, an issue for appellate review"

  8. In re Ngai

    367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that allowing claims where the printed matter was the only novel contribution would allow "anyone [to] continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product"

  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. In re Gulack

    703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even though the claim included printed matter, the printed matter was still entitled to patentable weight because there was a functional relationship between the printed matter and its underlying substrate

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   447 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."

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  14. 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)