§

Ex Parte O et al

11034595 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 13, 2010)
Ex Parte O et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp.

    724 F.2d 951 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 210 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the argument that an additional limitation be read into claims 1, 3, and 4 was only correct with respect to claim 1, and thus, only claim 1 was invalid

  2. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co.

    242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 66 times
    Finding that preamble term limited claim because the term was used in the specification as well as in all of the claims

  3. In re Brana

    51 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 43 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent applicants had established the utility of claimed therapeutic compounds by presenting in vitro test results and evidence of structural similarity to therapeutically useful compounds

  4. In re Cortright

    165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the patent's written description must "illuminate a credible utility" to meet the enablement requirement

  5. In re Swartz

    232 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 12 times
    Discussing the "substantial evidence" that claimed LENR results are "irreproducible" and that "those skilled in the art would 'reasonably doubt' the asserted utility and operability" of LENR technology

  6. In re Ziegler

    992 F.2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 17 times

    No. 91-1430. April 21, 1993. Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined June 29, 1993. Arnold Sprung, Sprung, Horn, Kramer Woods, Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were Nathaniel D. Kramer and Alan J. Grant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Adriene B. Lepiane. Paul E. Crawford and George Pazuniak, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, Wilmington, DE, were on the brief, for amicus curiae, Aristech Chemical Corp.

  7. Linde Air Products Co. v. Graver Tank Mfg. Co., (N.D.Ind. 1947)

    86 F. Supp. 191 (N.D. Ind. 1947)   Cited 16 times

    No. 607. June 6, 1947. Cahill, Gordon, Zachry, Reindel, New York City, Carlson, Pitzner, Hubbard, Wolfe, Chicago, Ill., Crumpacker, May, Carlisle, Beamer, South Bend, Ind., for plaintiff. L.L. Bomberger, Hammond, Ind., McKeehan, Merrick, Arter Stewart, Cleveland, Ohio, Wilkinson, Huxley, Byron Knight, Chicago, Ill., Oberlin Limbach, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant. SWYGERT, District Judge. The first question to be decided in this case is: Did the patentees invent something patentable over the prior

  8. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,363 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

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,997 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,494 times   2273 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  11. Section 1 - Establishment

    35 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 513 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  14. 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)