§

Ex Parte Severinsson

09710962 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2010)
Ex Parte Severinsson

15 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 667 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  2. Yoon Ja Kim v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

    465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringement of dependent claims, "necessarily follows" a finding of noninfringement of independent claims

  3. In re Clement

    131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Deciding as a matter of law "whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims"

  4. Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc.

    142 F.3d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 49 times
    Finding patentee's repeated arguments regarding the limitations constituted an admission that the limitations were necessary to overcome the prior art and the reissue claims impermissibly recaptured surrendered subject matter

  5. Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp.

    162 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 46 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Vectra Fitness, although the PTO added a terminal disclaimer to the prosecution history, it failed to enter the terminal disclaimer on the cover page or contents page of the prosecution history, and failed to publish the terminal disclaimer in the Offi- cial Gazette as contemplated by PTO regulations.

  6. Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp.

    465 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patent attorney's argument did not "clearly and unmistakably surrender" the subject matter

  7. MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.

    602 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 21 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the first step in applying the rule against recapture is to construe the reissued claims

  8. Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc.

    998 F.2d 992 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 32 times
    Finding surrender by way of claim amendments

  9. Haliczer v. United States

    356 F.2d 541 (Fed. Cir. 1966)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 13-61. February 18, 1966. Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for plaintiff; Donald A. Kaul, Herbert J. Jacobi and Marvin R. Stern, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Louise O'Neil, St. Paul, Minn., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Douglas, for defendant. Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and LARAMORE, DURFEE, DAVIS and COLLINS, Judges. PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] This opinion incorporates, with minor changes and some added discussion, the opinion prepared, at the direction of the

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1069 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

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 467 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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)