§

Ex Parte Sanderson et al

12801826 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)
Ex Parte Sanderson et al

15 Cited authorities

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

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 613 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. 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. In re Packard

    751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 37 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Addressing the issues separately

  4. In re Berger

    279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to consider the merits of indefiniteness rejections not contested before the Board

  5. Application of Moore

    439 F.2d 1232 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 46 times
    Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims

  6. 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

  7. Application of Hengehold

    440 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 16 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8345. April 29, 1971. Roy F. Schaeperklaus, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, attorney of record for appellant. William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael, Bradford Gardiner, Washington, D.C., James W. Pearce, Pearce Schaeperklaus, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

  8. Joseph E. Seagram Sons v. Marzall

    180 F.2d 26 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 3 times

    No. 10067. Argued December 13, 1949. Decided January 23, 1950. Mr. Arthur F. Robert, Louisville, Ky., with whom Mr. J. Harold Kilcoyne, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. W.W. Cochran, as Solicitor, United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee. Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges. WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge. This case involves a claim for a patent which would cover a method of testing

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,397 times   1051 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,152 times   485 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,020 times   1019 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 187 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 - [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)

  15. Section 1.144 - Petition from requirement for restriction

    37 C.F.R. § 1.144   Cited 4 times

    After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181 ). 37 C.F.R. §1.144 62 FR 53195, Oct. 10, 1997 Part 2 is placed in the separate