§
Ex Parte ONG

17 Cited authorities

  1. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 523 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  2. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.

    713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 483 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

  3. ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.

    346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 217 times
    Finding district court construction of a term improperly relied on circular reasoning to another term and was not supported by the claim language or specification

  4. In re Kahn

    441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 149 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the motivation-suggestion-teaching test, much like the analogous-art test, is used to defend against hindsight

  5. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  6. In re Marosi

    710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the patent "provided a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine" a phrase of degree

  7. Application of Gardner

    427 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1970)   Cited 26 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8311. June 25, 1970. Arthur R. Eglington, attorney of record for appellants, George J. Harding, 3rd, Joan S. Keps, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents, Leroy B. Randall, Jack Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. RICH, Acting Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent

  8. In re Boffey

    14 B.R. 2 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1981)   Cited 7 times

    Bankruptcy No. 80-00855-BKC-TCB. August 11, 1981. Raymond B. Ray, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for P. L. G. Enterprises, Inc. William Layton, West Palm Beach, Fla., for second mortgagee. Daniel L. Bakst, West Palm Beach, Fla., for trustee. Sam Costa, Jr., Boca Raton, Fla., for buyers of real property. Richard W. Smith, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Robert C. Furr, Boca Raton, Fla., co-counsel, for debtors. ORDER ON MORTGAGEE'S APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY'S FEE THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge. The

  9. Tofe v. Winchell

    645 F.2d 58 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 6 times

    Appeal No. 80-553. March 31, 1981. Steven J. Goldstein, Jack D. Schaeffer, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant. William H. Epstein, Nutley, N. J., George W. Johnston, Baltimore, Md., for appellee; Jon S. Saxe, Bernard S. Leon, George M. Gould, Nutley, N. J., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER, and NIES, Judges. NIES, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1068 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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 99 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 3 - Officers and employees

    35 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 50 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Providing that “[t]he Director shall ... appoint such officers ... as the Director considers necessary, ... and delegate to them such of the powers vested in the Office as the Director may determine”

  15. Section 112 - Control; regulations; prehistoric ruins

    16 U.S.C. § 112

    Mesa Verde National Park shall be under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior, whose duty it shall be to prescribe such rules and regulations and establish such service as he may deem necessary for the care and management of the same. Such regulations shall provide specifically for the preservation from injury or spoliation of the ruins and other works and relics of prehistoric or primitive man within said park. 16 U.S.C. § 112 ch. 3607, §2June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 617. EDITORIAL NOTES

  16. Section 9 - Certified copies of records

    35 U.S.C. § 9

    The Director may furnish certified copies of specifications and drawings of patents issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, and of other records available either to the public or to the person applying therefor. 35 U.S.C. § 9 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 794, §10; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; renumbered §9 and amended Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§4717(1), 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-580, 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107-273, div. C,

  17. 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)