§

Ex Parte Ko et al

12922681 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)
Ex Parte Ko et al

20 Cited authorities

  1. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical

    520 U.S. 17 (1997)   Cited 1,728 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

  2. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 638 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  3. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 423 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  4. WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology

    184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 538 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court correctly determined structure was "an algorithm executed by a computer," but "erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the specification"

  5. Watts v. XL Systems, Inc.

    232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 508 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee's representation about claim language limits that language even if it is later deleted and added elsewhere

  6. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 523 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  7. Lighting World v. Birchwood Lighting

    382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 268 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"

  8. Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc.

    156 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 314 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "movable link member" was subject to § 112 ¶ 6

  9. Blackboard v. DESIRE2LEARN

    368 F. App'x 111 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 164 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even "a cursory motion suffices to preserve an issue on JMOL so long as it 'serves the purposes of Rule 50, i.e., to alert the court to the party's legal position and to put the opposing party on notice of the moving party's position as to the insufficiency of the evidence.'"

  10. Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.

    769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 137 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms "program recognition device" and "program loading device" are means-plus-function terms because they fail to connote sufficient structure either in the form of hardware or software

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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