§

Ex Parte SCHWARZ

13525066 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)
Ex Parte SCHWARZ

16 Cited authorities

  1. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,829 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

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

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 614 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]”

  3. 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

  4. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.

    772 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " party asserting invalidity based on 35 U.S. § 112 bears no less a burden and no fewer responsibilities than any other patent challenger"

  5. Capon v. Eshhar

    418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 68 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was error for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to require "recitation in the specification of the nucleotide sequence of claimed DNA, when that sequence is already known in the field"

  6. In re Etter

    756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that whether one prior art reference can be incorporated into another is "basically irrelevant."

  7. In re Kaslow

    707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket UPC code system was prior use under meaning of Section 102(b)

  8. Bosies v. Benedict

    27 F.3d 539 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Bosies, the documentary evidence of conception consisted of the inventor's laboratory notebook, disclosing a generic formula with the length of a hydrocarbon chain designated as "n."

  9. In re Andersen

    743 F.2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal No. 83-1024. September 17, 1984. Robert E. Wagner, Chicago, Ill., argued, for appellant. With him on the brief were Leo J. Aubel and Alan L. Barry, Chicago, Ill. Thomas E. Lynch, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Jere W. Sears, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before SMITH and NIES, Circuit Judges, and WISDOM, Senior Circuit Judge. The Honorable John Minor

  10. Application of Aslanian

    590 F.2d 911 (C.C.P.A. 1979)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that in determining obviousness, all references are assessed "on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art" (quoting In re Baum , 374 F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967) )

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,399 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,154 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. Section 363 - International application designating the United States: Effect

    35 U.S.C. § 363   Cited 13 times   4 Legal Analyses

    An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. 35 U.S.C. § 363 Added Pub. L. 94-131, §1, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 686; amended Pub. L. 98-622, title IV, §403(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3392; Pub. L. 112-29, §§3(g)(3), Sept. 16, 2011, 20, Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 288, 335. EDITORIAL NOTES AMENDMENTS2011- Pub.

  16. Section 41.47 - Oral hearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.47   Cited 1 times   18 Legal Analyses

    (a) An oral hearing should be requested only in those circumstances in which appellant considers such a hearing necessary or desirable for a proper presentation of the appeal. An appeal decided on the briefs without an oral hearing will receive the same consideration by the Board as appeals decided after an oral hearing. (b) If appellant desires an oral hearing, appellant must file, as a separate paper captioned "REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING," a written request for such hearing accompanied by the fee