§

Ex Parte MATSUMOTO et al

14705684 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2018)
Ex Parte MATSUMOTO et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp.

    831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 75 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent specification's listing of components not listed in a Markush group was insufficient to overcome the presumption created by "consisting of" claim language

  2. AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.

    239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "composed of `excludes ingredients that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition'"

  3. Abbott Lab. v. Baxter Pharmaceutical

    334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 95 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the customary usage of "effective amount" was an amount sufficient to achieve the claimed effect

  4. Application of Driscoll

    562 F.2d 1245 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 34 times
    Claiming as the invention just one of the fourteen possible alternative structures identified in the disclosure does not run afoul of § 112, ¶ 1

  5. In re Harnisch

    631 F.2d 716 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Containing an Appendix describing Patent Office practice

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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 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"

  8. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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