§
Ex Parte Morrow

17 Cited authorities

  1. Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.

    334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,195 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not extend to situations where the supposed disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous

  2. 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

  3. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 334 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  4. In re Wands

    858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 343 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether undue experimentation is required is a "conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. . . . includ[ing] the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims."

  5. Turbocare Div. of Demag Delaval v. G.E

    264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[n]o reasonable juror could find that [the appellant's] original disclosure was sufficiently detailed to enable one of skill in the art to recognize that [the appellant] invented what is claimed"

  6. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

    694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 68 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[d]ue to breaks in the chain of priority," the "[parent] patent [was] prior art for some of the asserted claims"

  7. In re Klopfenstein

    380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 78 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether a reference is publicly accessible is based on the “facts and circumstances surrounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public”

  8. Cooper Cameron v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prod

    291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 79 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no reasonable juror could find that a port placed above two plugs could be insubstantially different from a port placed in between the two plugs

  9. In re Wright

    999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 91 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Relying on art published five years after filing date to show what was "sufficiently unpredictable" as of filing date

  10. In re Robertson

    169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,393 times   1049 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,016 times   1014 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 602 times   114 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. 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)