§

Ex Parte Sartor et al

10772316 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2008)
Ex Parte Sartor et al

12 Cited authorities

  1. Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

    403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 254 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding a chemical patent inherently anticipated and stating that it was irrelevant whether the inherently disclosed chemical was ever actually produced

  2. Continental Can Co. USA, v. Monsanto Co.

    948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 335 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inherent limitation must be “necessarily present” and cannot be established by “probabilities or possibilities”

  3. 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

  4. Sjolund v. Musland

    847 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 94 times
    Reciting the "general principle" that "limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims"

  5. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal

    129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that reduction to practice does not occur until inventor knows embodiment will work for its intended purposes

  6. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  7. In re Buszard

    504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2006-1489. Serial No. 10/429,429. September 27, 2007. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Thomas A. Ladd, Baker Daniels LLP, of Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellants. Shannon M. Hansen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for the director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor, and Heather F. Auyang, Associate Solicitor. Before

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,174 times   493 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."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,034 times   1029 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 189 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"

  11. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  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)