§

Ex Parte Fichtner et al

10789411 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2007)
Ex Parte Fichtner et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,889 times   170 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"

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

    133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 542 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    Holding that after all claims and counterclaims were decided or withdrawn, the district court acted properly when it “recognized that it could, in its discretion, decide this affirmative defense, but chose not to do so, citing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)”

  3. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.

    793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 272 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sales of product with instructions to use product in an infringing manner may constitute circumstantial evidence that customers would use the product in the manner directed

  4. Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

    831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 253 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]wo claims which read differently can claim the same subject matter"

  5. Depuy Spine v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 143 times
    Holding that Medtronic's bottom-loading screws, unlike its top-loading Vertex® screws, do not possess claim 1's "opening" limitation

  6. In re Yamamoto

    740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 111 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified”

  7. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  8. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. 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)