§

Ex Parte Minge et al

11813294 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)
Ex Parte Minge et al

13 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,828 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

    514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 452 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

  3. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp.

    441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 85 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding 0.001 to 1.0 percent range did not disclose a D.I to 5.0 percent range

  4. Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.

    668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 52 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while the disclosure of a broad genus does not disclose every species within that genus, where there is "no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range" the disclosure of the range in the prior art discloses the value within the range

  5. Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

    789 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 72 times
    Concluding that where the PTO has considered a question and resolved it in favor of the applicants, there is an “added burden” on the defendants of “overcoming the deference” afforded the PTO

  6. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  7. Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co.

    129 U.S. 530 (1889)   Cited 82 times   4 Legal Analyses

    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 65. Argued January 25, 1889. Decided March 5, 1889. Claims 1 and 2 of letters patent No. 178,463, granted June 6, 1876, to George M. Peters, for an improvement in tools for attaching sheet-metal moldings, on an application filed March 7, 1876, namely, "1. A sheath for applying metallic moldings, said sheath being furnished with a stop for advancing the molding, all substantially as and for the purpose specified;

  8. In re de Lajarte

    337 F.2d 870 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7237. November 5, 1964. John L. Seymour, Bauer Seymour, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., (George C. Roeming, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section

  9. 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

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,996 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. 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"

  12. 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

  13. 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)