§

Ex Parte Donitzky et al

12972899 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2017)
Ex Parte Donitzky et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,547 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,828 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  3. Revolution Eyewear v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.

    563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 95 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a component of an accused device meets "capable of engaging" limitation even though device is not designed or sold with component in engaging configuration

  4. Crown Packaging Tech. v. Ball Metal Beverage

    635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing summary judgment of no written description

  5. Scriptpro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc.

    762 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that compliance with the written description requirement, while a question of fact, may be decided on summary judgment if no reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the nonmovant

  6. Application of Smythe

    480 F.2d 1376 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing circumstances in which a species may be representative of and therefore descriptive of genus claims

  7. Application of Smith

    458 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1972)   Cited 30 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8590. May 18, 1972. Herbert B. Keil, Richard L. Johnston, Johnston, Root, O'Keeffe, Keil, Thompson Shurtleff, Chicago, Ill., attorneys of record, for appellant. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 Legal Analyses
    Requiring 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 times   479 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."

  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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  13. 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)