§

Ex Parte Hoke et al

12549693 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)
Ex Parte Hoke et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.

    299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,453 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

  3. Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    93 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 144 times
    Holding that the "plain meaning" of the claim at issue in that case would "not bear a reading" under which two different claim terms were construed as describing a single element

  4. 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

  5. Carolina Power and Light Company v. Jernigan

    222 F.2d 951 (4th Cir. 1955)   Cited 4 times

    No. 6984. Argued May 26, 1955. Decided May 27, 1955. A.Y. Arledge, Raleigh, N.C. (T.D. Paulling, Darlington, S.C., on brief), for appellant. John L. Neetles and James P. Mozingo, III, Darlington, S.C. (Archie L. Chandler, Darlington, S.C., on brief), for appellee. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order suppressing the taking of depositions until the court should have ruled upon a motion to remand. Appellant, the Carolina Power

  6. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  7. 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"

  8. 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