§
Ex Parte Norman

13 Cited authorities

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

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 615 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]”

  2. Bell Howell Document Mgmt. v. Altek Sys

    132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when the intrinsic evidence is unambiguous, it is improper for the court to rely on extrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction

  3. Miles Laboratories Inc. v. Shandon Inc.

    997 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 183 times
    Noting that operability is relevant "to the enablement requirement of § 112"

  4. In re GPAC Inc.

    57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In GPAC, for example, we found that a reference disclosing an equilibrium air door was reasonably pertinent to a patent directed to asbestos removal because they both addressed the same problem of "maintaining a pressurized environment while allowing for human ingress and egress."

  5. Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works

    79 F.3d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exemplary damages are not permitted under the Act when the defendant was motivated by competition, rather than by malice

  6. Reese v. Hurst

    661 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 35 times
    In Reese v. Hurst, 211 USPQ 936, 941, 943 (CCPA 1981), our predecessor court affirmed a Board decision that a reduction to practice had occurred on the date that test results were obtained instead of on the later date when the results were conveyed to the inventor; however, the court did not explain this aspect of its decision.

  7. Leach Co. v. Peirson

    275 U.S. 120 (1927)   Cited 49 times
    In Leach Co. v. Peirson, 275 U.S. 120, 128, 48 S.Ct. 57, 58, 72 L.Ed. 194, 55 A.L.R. 457, where such evidence was excluded (in a ruling said by Wigmore, op. cit., to be erroneous "both on principle and on the particular facts"), it was pointed out that there were no circumstances "to take it out of the general rule.

  8. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 29 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,409 times   1059 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 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  12. 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)

  13. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by