§

Ex Parte Eisner

08668737 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2002)
Ex Parte Eisner

6 Cited authorities

  1. Excel Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp

    528 U.S. 946 (1999)   Cited 85 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the Perry rule has been consistently applied

  2. Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's

    525 U.S. 1093 (1999)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forum selection provision should be brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)

  3. State St. Bank Trust v. Sig. Fin. G

    149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 60 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the means-plus-function elements of the claims on appeal all corresponded to supporting structures disclosed in the written description

  4. ATT CORP. v. EXCEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC

    172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 25 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding patentable "a process that uses the Boolean principle in order to determine the value of the PIC indicator" and that "require[d] the use of switches and computers"

  5. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,541 times   2297 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  6. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)