§

Ex Parte Holtz et al

10191467 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2011)
Ex Parte Holtz et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    525 U.S. 55 (1998)   Cited 430 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the invention must be ready for patenting" to trigger the on-sale bar

  2. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. v. Johnson Johnson

    976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 223 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish anticipation, a party "must show that each element of the claim in issue is found, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference"

  3. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.

    432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 147 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prior-art reference anticipated claims 1-4 and 7, but not claims 8, 9, and 13, because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation

  4. In re Caveney

    761 F.2d 671 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 113 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 102(b), invention must be "on sale" in the United States

  5. Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C.

    178 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that "the first determination in the § 102(b) analysis must be whether the subject of the barring activity met each of the limitations of the claim, and thus was an embodiment of the claimed invention."

  6. In re Smith

    714 F.2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 78 times
    Adding that the purpose of market testing is "commercial exploitation and not experimentation"

  7. In re Epstein

    32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 47 times
    Finding “no clear error” in the Board's fact finding that writings dated after the filing date demonstrated the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention

  8. Lough v. Brunswick Corporation

    86 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the lack of recordkeeping important even with an inventor less sophisticated than Dr. Barry

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,031 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 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"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  12. 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)

  13. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by