§

Ex Parte Klunder et al

11917947 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)
Ex Parte Klunder et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 660 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

  2. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch Lomb Inc.

    909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding § 271(c) codified common law doctrine prohibiting sale of "component" that "had no other use except with claimed product or process"

  3. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  4. Application of Gardiner

    171 F.2d 313 (C.C.P.A. 1948)   Cited 15 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5492. December 7, 1948. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 527,224. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Duncan B. Gardiner for a patent. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming that of the primary examiner rejecting claims 15 to 19, inclusive, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. Ralph L. Tweedale, of Detroit, Mich. (N. Douglas Parker, Jr., of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. W.W. Cochran, of Washington,

  5. Application of Otto

    312 F.2d 937 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6901. February 13, 1963. Clarence M. Fisher, Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Barrows Taylor, Washington, D.C. (John T. Roberts, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the Primary Examiner's rejection

  6. Application of Danly

    263 F.2d 844 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 4 times
    Limiting claims to require that the claimed device actually be connected to an alternating current source because, although the claims "do not positively recite a source of alternating current as an element of the claims," any other interpretation would render certain language in the claims meaningless

  7. Application of Rishoi

    197 F.2d 342 (C.C.P.A. 1952)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming the "refusal to allow claim based upon an unequivocal admission in appellants' specification of what was old and well known in the art"

  8. In re Smith

    17 C.C.P.A. 644 (C.C.P.A. 1929)   Cited 17 times

    Patent Appeal No. 2169. December 19, 1929. Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents. Application for patent by Jesse A.B. Smith. From a decision rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. See also 36 F.2d 303. Burnham C. Stickney, of New York City (L.H. Campbell, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges. GRAHAM, Presiding Judge. The appellant

  9. In re Young

    75 F.2d 996 (C.C.P.A. 1935)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 3432. March 25, 1935. Appeal from Board of Appeals of United States Patent Office, Serial No. 412,654. Application for patent by Howard F. Young. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Examiner which rejected certain claims of the application, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Chappell Earl, of Kalamazoo, Mich., for appellant. T.A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner

  10. 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."

  11. 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"

  12. 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

  13. 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)