§

Ex Parte Kimball et al

13727440 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2019)
Ex Parte Kimball et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  2. Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal

    872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 82 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Addressing whether the language of § 316(e), which all conceded applied to challenged claims, "applies equally to proposed substitute claims"

  3. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG

    812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 36 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of secondary considerations must be examined to determine its impact on the first three Graham factors

  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. CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal

    876 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In CRFD, we explained that "a person of ordinary skill [provided] with a simple design choice" to address a problem is presumed to " ‘ha[ve] a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.’ "

  6. In re Smith Int'l, Inc.

    871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 15 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reversing an anticipation rejection because it was predicated on an unreasonably broad claim construction

  7. In re Buszard

    504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2006-1489. Serial No. 10/429,429. September 27, 2007. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Thomas A. Ladd, Baker Daniels LLP, of Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellants. Shannon M. Hansen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for the director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Heather F. Auyang, Associate Solicitor. Before

  8. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 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 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"

  11. 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