§

Ex Parte MASUDA et al

13676931 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2019)
Ex Parte MASUDA et al

7 Cited authorities

  1. Johnston v. Ivac Corp.

    885 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that Section 112 "operates to cut back on the types of means which could literally satisfy the claim language" and thereby "restricts the scope of the literal claim language" by requiring the structures to appear in the specification

  2. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

    796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 50 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was error to rely on a clinical protocol to show earlier possession because the protocol was not disclosed in the specifications of the asserted patents

  3. Application of Chitayat

    408 F.2d 475 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 4 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8125. April 3, 1969. John C. Vassil, New York City (Thomas P. Dowling, New York City, of counsel) for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the Patent Office Board of Appeals decision affirming the rejection of all the claims of appellant's application under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Serial No. 266,730

  4. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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

  5. 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"

  6. 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

  7. 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)