§

Ex Parte Davydov et al

12958326 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017)
Ex Parte Davydov et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.

    133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 540 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that after all claims and counterclaims were decided or withdrawn, the district court acted properly when it “recognized that it could, in its discretion, decide this affirmative defense, but chose not to do so, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)”

  2. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment

    527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 221 times
    Finding dictionary definitions supported district court's claim construction

  3. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

    334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the correct meaning of a word or phrase is informed only by considering the surrounding text. . . . [R]esort must always be made to the surrounding text of the claims in question, the other claims, the written description and the prosecution history."

  4. In re Van Geuns

    988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1088. March 10, 1993. Jack E. Haken, U.S. Philips Corp., Tarrytown, NY, argued, for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief, was Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before ARCHER, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. ARCHER, Circuit Judge. Johannes R. Van Geuns appeals from the September 25, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  5. In re Heck

    699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions"

  6. Application of Zenitz

    333 F.2d 924 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7142. July 9, 1964. Laurence Laurence, Washington, D.C. (Dean Laurence, Herbert I. Sherman, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Zenitz appeals from the affirmance by the Board of Appeals of the rejection of claims 3, 5, 9 through 12 and 21 of his patent application

  7. Application of Lemelson

    397 F.2d 1006 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7980. June 27, 1968. R.J. Lasker, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 7 and 10-19 of application serial

  8. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  9. 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)

  10. 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