§

Ex Parte Shrier et al

09139309 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 10, 2003)
Ex Parte Shrier et al

42 Cited authorities

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,187 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  2. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

    158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,720 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

  3. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 975 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  4. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix

    308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 763 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an alleged prior user's testimony for lack of corroboration when the only contemporaneous corroborating evidence offered was an unissued patent application

  5. Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp.

    175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 584 times
    Holding that "modifiers will not be added to broad terms standing alone"

  6. York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center

    99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 315 times
    Holding that the claim language "means formed on the . . . sidewall portions including a plurality of spaced apart . . . members protruding from the . . . sidewall portions and forming load lock . . ." did not invoke § 112, ¶ 6: "The claim language does not link the term means to a function . . . Instead, the claim recites structure. . . . Without a `means' sufficiently connected to a recited function, the presumption in use of the word `means' does not operate."

  7. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock

    721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 327 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court erred by "considering the references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand"

  8. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs

    806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 253 times
    Holding that the limitation that the claimed wheelchair have a "front leg portion . . . so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats thereof" was not indefinite

  9. Connell v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    722 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 263 times
    Finding that the "right to exclude recognized in a patent is the essence of the concept of property"

  10. Miles Laboratories Inc. v. Shandon Inc.

    997 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 183 times
    Noting that operability is relevant "to the enablement requirement of § 112"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,412 times   1063 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 6,165 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,025 times   1026 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  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 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  16. 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)