11 Cited authorities
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,714 times 164 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,154 times 50 Legal AnalysesHolding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Superguide Corp. v. Directv Enterprises
358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 294 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding that a party "waived its right to assert a construction other than 'matches or equals' for the term 'meet'" because it agreed to that construction in its briefs
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.
349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 78 times 3 Legal AnalysesFinding no material misrepresentation in part because a PTO examiner's reasons for allowance did not reflect that the PTO relied on the allegedly false applicant statements
In re Zletz
893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 42 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2
In re Rijckaert
9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 22 times 4 Legal AnalysesNo. 93-1206. November 23, 1993. Edward W. Goodman, North American Philips Corp., of Tarrytown, NY, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Algy Tamoshunas. Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and LAY, Senior Circuit Judge. Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the
Application of Royka
490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) Cited 18 timesRecognizing that if an independent claim is not anticipated, its dependent claims are also not anticipated
Rice v. United States
7 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1925) Cited 11 timesNo. 4597. August 3, 1925. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of California; John S. Partridge, Judge. Petition by Harry Rice for writ of habeas corpus against the United States of America and Frank Barnett, Sheriff of Alameda County, Cal. Petition denied (6 F.[2d] 167), and petitioner appeals. Affirmed. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, denying
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,056 times 449 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 182 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
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