§
Ex Parte Kraus

61 Cited authorities

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

    520 U.S. 17 (1997)   Cited 1,733 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. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.

    535 U.S. 722 (2002)   Cited 826 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

  3. Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.

    54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 979 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "sputter-deposited dielectric" could not be formed by a two-step process because patentee argued during prosecution that it was formed by a one-step process

  4. Bell Communications v. Vitalink Communications

    55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 417 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that part-time infringement is nonetheless infringement

  5. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 397 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  6. Festo v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki

    344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 220 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that resolution of the foreseeability criterion depends on the underlying facts

  7. Texas Instruments v. U.S. Intl. Trade Com'n

    988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 272 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim."

  8. Festo C. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki

    234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 203 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecution history estoppel applies to voluntary amendments and noting that "[t]here is no reason why prosecution history estoppel should arise if the Patent Office rejects a claim because it believes the claim to be unpatentable, but not arise if the applicant amends a claim because he believes the claim to be unpatentable"

  9. Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.

    122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 198 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Class II medical devices, which are not subject to a “rigorous premarket approval process” and thus cannot receive patent term extensions, are nonetheless covered by the safe harbor

  10. Honeywell Intern v. Hamilton Sundstrand

    370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecution history estoppel applies if the scope of the subject matter claimed in a rewritten independent claim has been narrowed to secure the patent

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 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 6,172 times   492 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 1498 - Patent and copyright cases

    28 U.S.C. § 1498   Cited 518 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Granting the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement suits against the federal government under a takings theory

  15. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 467 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  16. Section 252 - Effect of reissue

    35 U.S.C. § 252   Cited 292 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a reissued patent shall have the same effect as the original patent “in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical ”

  17. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  18. Section 1.175 - Inventor's oath or declaration for a reissue application

    37 C.F.R. § 1.175   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue oath or declaration requirement

  19. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  20. 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)

  21. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by