§

Ex Parte Lyons et al

11047016 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)
Ex Parte Lyons et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Biomedino v. Waters

    490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 200 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure"

  2. In re Donaldson Co., Inc.

    16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which limits means-plus-function claims to the structures described in the specification and their equivalents, "applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court"

  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. Leeb v. United States

    16 F.2d 937 (S.D.N.Y. 1926)

    October 7, 1926. Benjamin A. Levett, of New York City (Wm. E. Russell, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioners. Emory R. Buckner, U.S. Atty., and Thomas J. Crawford, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of New York City. At Law. Action by Alfred Leeb and another, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Batjer Co., against the United States. On motion of the United States to dismiss. Motion denied, and judgment for plaintiffs. GODDARD, District Judge. This is an action brought by the plaintiffs

  5. 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

  6. 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."

  7. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 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 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"

  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 3 - Officers and employees

    35 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 50 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

  11. Section 23 - Testimony in Patent and Trademark Office cases

    35 U.S.C. § 23   Cited 14 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Director of the PTO the authority to "establish rules for taking affidavits and depositions required in cases in the [PTO]"

  12. Section 102 - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 10 times

    8 U.S.C. § 102 June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(13), 66 Stat. 279, eff. Dec. 24, 1952 Section, acts Feb. 5, 1917, ch. 29, §23, 39 Stat. 892; May 14, 1937, ch. 181, 50 Stat. 164; Oct. 29, 1945, ch. 438, 59 Stat. 551; Oct. 15, 1949, ch. 695, §5(a), 63 Stat. 880, related to administration of immigration laws. See sections 1103, 1223(a),and 1260 of this title.

  13. Section 26 - Effect of defective execution

    35 U.S.C. § 26   Cited 9 times

    Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be executed in a specified manner may be provisionally accepted by the Director despite a defective execution, provided a properly executed document is submitted within such time as may be prescribed. 35 U.S.C. § 26 Added Pub. L. 88-292, §1, Mar. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 171; amended Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)]

  14. 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)