§

Ex Parte Karcher

12707333 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)
Ex Parte Karcher

17 Cited authorities

  1. Energizer Holdings v. Int'l Trade Com'n

    435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an antecedent basis can be present by implication"

  2. Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 112 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of validity needs to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence

  3. Acco Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc.

    813 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 32 times
    Explaining that where an "ordinary artisan would ... be left with two design choices ... [e]ach of these two design choices is an obvious combination"

  4. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc.

    725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that dependent claims fall with the independent claim on which they depend unless argued separately

  5. PlaSmart, Inc. v. Kappos

    482 F. App'x 568 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 4 times
    In PlaSmart, the Federal Circuit merely reiterated that "[its] precedent has held that drawings can be used as prior art, without referring to the surrounding description, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing," and determined that "the Board properly followed this precedent."

  6. Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos

    705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1434. 2013-01-23 REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC, Appellant, v. David J. KAPPOS, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Appellee, and Habasit Belting, Inc., Appellee. David R. Cross, Quarles & Brady, LLP, of Milwaukee, WI, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Johanna Wilbert. Mary L. Kelly, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and William LaMarca, Associate Solicitor. NEWMAN

  7. Fluor Tec, Corp. v. Kappos

    499 F. App'x 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

    2012-1295 12-11-2012 FLUOR TEC, CORP., Appellant, v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee, AND LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. ROBERT D. FISH, Fish & Associates, PC, of Irvine, California, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was MEI TSANG. RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee, United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were AMY J. NELSON and KRISTI

  8. In re Gal

    980 F.2d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that different structure to achieve different purpose was not an obvious design choice

  9. Application of Aslanian

    590 F.2d 911 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that in determining obviousness, all references are assessed "on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art" (quoting In re Baum , 374 F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967) )

  10. Application of Kuhle

    526 F.2d 553 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 75-602. December 4, 1975. Keith D. Beecher, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Joseph E. Nakamura, Sol., R.V. Lupo, Assoc. Sol., Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office. MILLER, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 of application serial No. 314,180, filed Dec. 11, 1972, for "Portable Moisture

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1060 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. 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"

  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 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

  16. 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)

  17. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 9 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence