§

Ex Parte Schulze et al

14113017 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)
Ex Parte Schulze et al

7 Cited authorities

  1. Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

    764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 48 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a claim construction that was supported by the intrinsic evidence and the inventor's testimony

  2. UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.

    890 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 11 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding claim term "suitable" not indefinite because the "record [was] devoid of any evidence that a POSA would need 'clear guidelines' or 'explicit guidance' or 'the upper and lower limits'" to understand the term

  3. In re Basell Poliolefine

    547 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 15 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the two-way test inapplicable where the applicant failed to present the claims in earlier applications in the chain of priority — "Natta's actions, or inactions, had a direct effect on prosecution and thus were responsible for any delay in prosecution"

  4. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    222 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 13 times

    Nos. 99-1262, -1263, -1264, -1303 DECIDED: August 9, 2000 Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Chief Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Charles E. Lipsey, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant, Eli Lilly and Company. With him on the brief were Allen M. Sokal, Kenneth M. Frankel, and David S. Forman. Of counsel was L. Scott Burwell. Of counsel on the brief were Douglas K. Norman, and James P

  5. 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."

  6. 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"

  7. 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