11 Cited authorities
Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.
681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 186 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that the district court's conclusion that a finding of a substantial non-infringing use precludes a finding of induced infringement was legal error
BJ Services Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
338 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 89 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding indefiniteness “is amendable to resolution by the jury where the issues are factual in nature”
In re Jung
637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 24 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant
In re Glaug
283 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 13 times 2 Legal AnalysesNos. 00-1571, 08/455,374. DECIDED: March 15, 2002. Appeal from the decision of Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals. Meredith Martin Addy, Brinks, Hofer Gilson Lione, of Chicago, IL, argued for appellants. With her on the brief were Robert N. Carpenter and Henry L. Brinks. Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With her on the brief was John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Mary Critharis
Fountain v. United States
236 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1956) Cited 6 timesNo. 12952. Argued April 27, 1956. Decided June 28, 1956. Mr. Marshall P. Johnson, Washington, D.C. (appointed by District Court), for appellant. Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty. at the time brief was filed, Lewis Carroll and Edward O. Fennell, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee. Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,406 times 1058 Legal AnalysesRequiring 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
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,157 times 488 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination
35 U.S.C. § 132 Cited 310 times 47 Legal AnalysesProhibiting addition of "new matter"
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
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
Section 1.104 - Nature of examination
37 C.F.R. § 1.104 Cited 53 times 9 Legal AnalysesProviding reasons for patent examiner's rejection of claims, including rejection for prior art "unless the entire rights to the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the same person . . ."