§

Ex Parte Jensen et al

10104298 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2010)
Ex Parte Jensen et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Brown v. 3M

    265 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims did "not require elaborate interpretation"

  2. Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., LTD

    868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 181 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding an equitable remedy appropriate for wrongful appropriation of intellectual property

  3. In re Bond

    910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, since "structural equivalency ... is a question of fact," where the Board made no finding as to structural equivalency, this Court would "not reach that question in the first instance" and instead vacate and remand

  4. U.S. v. Glover

    814 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1987)   Cited 11 times

    No. 86-1632. Argued January 7, 1987. Decided March 18, 1987. Willie J. Davis, Boston, Mass., for defendant, appellant. Jonathan Chiel, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Robert S. Mueller, III, U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Before COFFIN, Circuit Judge, ROSENN, Senior Circuit Judge, and SELYA, Circuit Judge. Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. COFFIN, Circuit Judge. Appellant Vivian Glover

  5. In re 7H Land Cattle Co.

    8 B.R. 22 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    Bankruptcy Nos. 80-00183 to 80-00185. November 4, 1980. Lionel, Sawyer Collins by Richard W. Horton, Reno, Nev., for alleged debtors. Hawkins, Rhodes, Sharp, Barbagelata Haase by Prince A. Hawkins, Reno, Nev., for petitioning creditor. OPINION AND DECISION BERT M. GOLDWATER, Bankruptcy Judge. On March 28, 1980, Security Bank of Nevada (Security) sole creditor of Lynn W. Rose, Elaine G. Rose, and 7H Land Cattle Co., Inc., a Nevada corporation, (7H) filed three separate petitions for involuntary bankruptcy

  6. 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"

  7. 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"

  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

  9. 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)