§

Ex Parte Lim et al

14420771 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019)
Ex Parte Lim et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc.

    849 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 41 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board incorporated the Examiner's findings by reference because it particularly identified the Right of Appeal Notice and the specific page ranges where the incorporated material could be found

  2. Para-Ordnance Manufacturing, Inc. v. SGS Importers International, Inc.

    73 F.3d 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 80 times
    Explaining that "[f]rom the decision of the district court, we can, and do, accept the implicit fact-finding"

  3. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  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. In re Imes

    778 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 2 times   5 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1206. 2015-01-29 In re Kevin R. IMES. John S. Artz, Dickinson Wright PLLC, of Troy, Michigan, for appellant. Of counsel were Bryan Joseph Schomer and Frank Michael Smith. Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief were Thomas W. Krause, Deputy Solicitor, Joseph G. Piccolo and Joseph Matal, Associate Solicitors. MOORE Reversed and remanded. John S. Artz, Dickinson Wright PLLC

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,053 times   444 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."

  7. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 180 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"

  8. 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

  9. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)