§

Ex Parte Liu et al

13561701 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2017)
Ex Parte Liu et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.

    709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that liability for induced infringement begins when the defendant has "actual 'knowledge of the existence of the patent'"

  2. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  3. In re Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC

    856 F.3d 902 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that use of the term "comprising" "signals that the breadth of [the method claim] allows for additional steps interleaved between the recited steps," and that the Board did not err in concluding that the claim does not prohibit additional, intervening steps between those recited

  4. In re Morsa

    803 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 4 times

    No. 2015–1107. 10-19-2015 In re Steve MORSA, Appellant. Steve Morsa, Thousand Oaks, CA, pro se. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Joseph Gerard Piccolo, Coke Stewart. PROST, Chief Judge. Steve Morsa, Thousand Oaks, CA, pro se. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented

  5. U.S. v. Marino

    200 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    Affirming a district court's denial of collateral estoppel because of ambiguous jury instructions and the apparent irrationality of the jury's verdicts

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 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."

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  8. 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"

  9. 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

  10. Section 1.136 - 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)