§

Ex Parte Mauri et al

14389168 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2019)
Ex Parte Mauri et al

18 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,563 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 614 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 328 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

  4. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  5. Lighting World v. Birchwood Lighting

    382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 268 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he district judge is in a far better position to assess [litigation misconduct] than we are"

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

    208 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 252 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"

  7. Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.

    417 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 172 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while "[w]aiver is a procedural issue," the question of whether there has been "waiver of a claim construction argument . . . [is] indisputably unique to patent law"

  8. University, Rochester v. G.D. Searle Co.

    358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 139 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding the patent invalid because "Rochester did not present any evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to identify any compound based on [the specification's] vague functional description"

  9. Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.

    550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that means plus function claims are interpreted with reference to, and as limited by, the related structure disclosed in the patent for performing the function recited in the claim, or the equivalents thereof

  10. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.

    782 F.3d 671 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the applicant's use of the phrase 'refers to' "indicate[d] an intention to define a term" that precluded a different definition during claim construction

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,399 times   1051 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 6,154 times   485 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 187 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 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)