§

Ex Parte Hu et al

13492830 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2019)
Ex Parte Hu et al

18 Cited authorities

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

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 587 times   76 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. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 392 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  3. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 335 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  4. In re Swartz

    232 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 12 times
    Discussing the "substantial evidence" that claimed LENR results are "irreproducible" and that "those skilled in the art would 'reasonably doubt' the asserted utility and operability" of LENR technology

  5. Application of Hengehold

    440 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8345. April 29, 1971. Roy F. Schaeperklaus, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, attorney of record for appellant. William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael, Bradford Gardiner, Washington, D.C., James W. Pearce, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

  6. Application of Mott

    539 F.2d 1291 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 76-568. August 12, 1976. John H. Dodge, II, Pravel Wilson, Charles W. Hanor, Houston, Tex., attorneys of record, for appellant, James B. Gambrell, New York City, of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, John W. DeWhirst, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent

  7. Application of Eltgroth

    419 F.2d 918 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8237. January 8, 1970. George V. Eltgroth, pro se. Melvin M. Goldenberg, Arlington, Va., of counsel. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, sitting by designation. ALMOND, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1-15, all the claims in appellant's

  8. Application of Aufhauser

    399 F.2d 275 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 7 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7934. July 18, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 10, 1968. Kenyon Kenyon, New York City, Solon B. Kemon, Washington, D.C. (Richard K. Parsell, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK, Judges. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania by designation. SMITH, Judge. Appellant's claims were rejected

  9. Application of Ferens

    417 F.2d 1072 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 6 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8177. November 20, 1969. Eugene F. Buell, Buell, Blenko Ziesenheim, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Leroy Randall, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, GANEY, Judge, sitting by designation, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejections of process claims

  10. Application of Collier

    397 F.2d 1003 (C.C.P.A. 1968)   Cited 5 times
    Rejecting claim on grounds of indefiniteness and obviousness

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,289 times   1031 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 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,423 times   2203 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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 1.181 - Petition to the Director

    37 C.F.R. § 1.181   Cited 52 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for petitions invoking the Director's supervisory authority

  16. 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

  17. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)