§

Ex Parte Greenfield

12788934 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)
Ex Parte Greenfield

23 Cited authorities

  1. Baldwin Graphic v. Siebert

    512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 304 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase comprising” unless a patentee has “ ‘evidence[d] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one’ ”

  2. Coleman v. Dines

    754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 96 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.

  3. Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Elec

    266 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the date on which an invention is “made” for purposes of priority under 102(g) is the earlier of either “a reduction to practice, or conception of the invention plus diligence to actual or constructive reduction to practice.”

  4. Griffith v. Kanamaru

    816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Appeal No. 87-1042. April 8, 1987. Eric S. Spector of Jones, Tullar Cooper, P.C., Arlington, Va., argued for appellant. Harold C. Wegner of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C., argued for appellees. With him on brief was Helmuth A. Wegner, of Wegner Bretschneider, Washington, D.C.; Barry E. Bretschneider and Herbert I. Cantor, of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before BISSELL, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit

  5. In re Asahi/America, Inc.

    68 F.3d 442 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    No. 94-1249. DECIDED February 24, 1995. Gerald E. Hespos, Casella and Hespos, New York City, argued, for appellant. With him on the brief was Anthony J. Casella. Muriel E. Crawford, Associate Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Albin F. Drost, Acting Sol. and Richard E. Schafer, Acting Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before RADER, Circuit Judge, SMITH, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit

  6. In re Costello

    717 F.2d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 14 times

    Appeal No. 83-567. September 20, 1983. Richard L. Schwaab, Alexandria, Va., argued for appellant. Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MILLER, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and SMITH, Circuit Judge. EDWARD S. SMITH, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the December 5, 1979, decision

  7. In re Mulder

    716 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]here is no question that applicants complied with all the formalities required by § 119 and related PTO rules"

  8. In re DeBaun

    687 F.2d 459 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 11 times

    Appeal No. 82-530. August 27, 1982. Ernest M. Anderson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Henry W. Tarring, II, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. NIES, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection of claims 9 and 10 in application

  9. Gould v. Schawlow

    363 F.2d 908 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lapse in activity of “nearly two months” defeated a claim of diligence

  10. Rieser v. Williams

    255 F.2d 419 (C.C.P.A. 1958)   Cited 8 times
    Requiring the inventor to show activity during an initial 13–day span of the critical period

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  16. Section 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   14 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057 , Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the

  17. 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

  18. 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)