§

Ex Parte Mazzola et al

13751434 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)
Ex Parte Mazzola et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Amgen v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche

    580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 209 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct "is analogous to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103"

  2. Gen. Electric Co. v. Wabash Co.

    304 U.S. 364 (1938)   Cited 323 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims invalid where the grains of the claimed lighting filament were distinguished from the prior art only because they were "of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting" of the filament during the commercially useful life of the lamp

  3. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.

    469 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 31 times
    Affirming the district court's holding of invalidity despite the court's statement that “[t]here is no indication that the [motivation to combine] was non-obvious,” because the district court's opinion as a whole indicated it “correctly allocated the burden of proof”

  4. In re Marosi

    710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 36 times
    Holding claim limitations "are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"

  5. Cochrane v. Badische Anilin Soda Fabrik

    111 U.S. 293 (1884)   Cited 42 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Determining that "an old article" made by a new process was not patentable

  6. 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,130 times   479 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."

  8. 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"

  9. 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)

  10. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence