§

Ex Parte Lyons et al

13683146 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)
Ex Parte Lyons et al

27 Cited authorities

  1. Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.

    239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 516 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary considerations based on "copying Amazon's ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown to be an embodiment of the claims"

  2. B. Braun Medical v. Abbott Laboratories

    124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 510 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's pre- Markman failure to instruct the jury on the construction of a means-plus-function limitation was harmless because the jury adopted the correct construction

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

    156 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 306 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "movable link member" was subject to § 112 ¶ 6

  4. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 225 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in order to literally infringe, the accused device had to actually perform both of the claimed functions in a means-plus-function claim

  5. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co.

    208 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 248 times
    Holding that the corresponding structure was not just a "flat rectangle, but a plastic flap that folds over [an] envelope's opening and is secured to the outside of one or both panels of the envelope"

  6. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc.

    206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 219 times
    Holding that preamble phrase "control apparatus" does not limit claim scope when it merely gives a descriptive name to the claimed invention

  7. Honeywell International Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp.

    488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " breach of duty [of candor] — including affirmative misrepresentations of material facts, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information — coupled with an intent to deceive, constitutes inequitable conduct"

  8. 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"

  9. Randall Mfg. v. Rea

    733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 80 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of non-obviousness where court “narrowly focus[ed] on the four prior-art references” and ignored record evidence of “the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art” to explain motivation to combine or modify references

  10. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 87 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,280 times   1025 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 6,056 times   449 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 182 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

  16. 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)