§

Ex Parte Hinnebusch

13343360 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2017)
Ex Parte Hinnebusch

16 Cited authorities

  1. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 603 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  2. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 421 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  3. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Lilly & Co.

    119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 333 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that written description requires more than a "mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention"

  4. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 395 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  5. ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.

    558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 179 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding that importing limitations from the specification into the claims may be proper where the specification "repeatedly and uniformly describes the spike as a pointed instrument for the purpose of piercing a seal inside the valve."

  6. Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping

    424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 154 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand" the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it

  7. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.

    673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 121 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding indefinite a claim reciting a computer-implemented means-plus-function term where "[t]he specification merely provide[d] functional language and d[id] not contain any step-by-step process" for performing the claimed function

  8. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.

    323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 120 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting petition for rehearing and vacating prior panel decision reported at 285 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

  9. Ven-Tel, Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.

    982 F.2d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that jury is free to consider alleged infringer's behavior as party to the litigation as part of the totality of the circumstances when determining willful infringement

  10. Fiers v. Revel

    984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 74 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim to a genus of DNA molecules not supported by written description of a method for obtaining the molecules

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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)