§

Ex Parte Slayton et al

13136541 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)
Ex Parte Slayton et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac

    344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 207 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "dependent claims are presumed to be of narrower scope than the independent claims from which they depend"

  2. In re Wright

    999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 91 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Relying on art published five years after filing date to show what was "sufficiently unpredictable" as of filing date

  3. In re Fritch

    972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 30 times
    Stating "dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"

  4. Santiago v. Cooperativa De Ahorro Y Credito De Arecibo (In re Santiago)

    541 B.R. 8 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2015)

    CASE NO. 15–03157 ESL ADV. PROC. 15–00143 11-05-2015 In re: Marlon Jesus Santiago Santiago, Debtors Marlon Jesus Santiago Santiago, Plaintiff(s) v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito de Arecibo, Defendant. Carlos C. Alsina Batista, Carlos Alsina Batista Law Offices PSC, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Damaris Quinones Vargas, Bufete Quinones Vargas & Asoc., Cabo Rojo, PR, for Defendant. Enrique S. Lamoutte, United States Bankruptcy Judge Carlos C. Alsina Batista, Carlos Alsina Batista Law Offices PSC,

  5. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,288 times   1030 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,065 times   461 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."

  7. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 183 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"

  8. 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