§

Ex Parte Sharps et al

10723456 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2010)
Ex Parte Sharps et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 354 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee had the burden to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date when it was undisputed that a certain reference was invalidating prior art

  2. ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.

    558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 179 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding that importing limitations from the specification into the claims may be proper where the specification "repeatedly and uniformly describes the spike as a pointed instrument for the purpose of piercing a seal inside the valve."

  3. Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating Packing

    731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]n original patent cannot be infringed once a reissue patent has issued, for the original patent is surrendered" and "[t]he original claims are dead"

  4. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  5. Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Intern., Inc.

    835 F.2d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Kennecott, where the term "equiaxed microstructure" was expressly used to describe an invention for the first time in a CIP, the CIP was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent patent because the description was inherent in the structure produced in the original parent patent.

  6. In re Marosi

    710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 36 times
    Holding claim limitations "are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"

  7. Application of Mattison

    509 F.2d 563 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-568. January 23, 1975. Jesse B. Grove, Jr., Arlington, Va., attorney of record, for appellants; Gene O. Enockson, Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. BALDWIN, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered

  8. Application of Lindell

    385 F.2d 453 (C.C.P.A. 1967)   Cited 14 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7847. November 9, 1967. Robert R. Lockwood, Chicago, Ill., (Harris C. Lockwood, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals

  9. Pingree v. Hull

    518 F.2d 624 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 74-623. June 26, 1975. John D. Pope III, St. Louis Mo., attorney of record, for appellants. Roland H. Shubert, attorney of record, for appellee. Joseph A. Hill and Martin Avin, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MILLER, Judge. The senior party, Pingree and Batman (Pingree), appeals from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Interferences

  10. Dreyfus v. Sternau

    53 C.C.P.A. 1050 (C.C.P.A. 1966)   Cited 12 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7563. March 24, 1966. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D.C. (C. Edward Parker, Cambridge, Mass., of counsel), for appellants. John A. Blair, Detroit, Mich., James M. Heilman, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d)

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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 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

  15. Section 1.136 - 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)