§

Ex Parte SONG et al

13913707 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)
Ex Parte SONG et al

7 Cited authorities

  1. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.

    672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 145 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an independent claim including the limitation "magnetic member" includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting "magnetic member" to a magnet

  2. In re Giannelli

    739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 26 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing affirmance of examiner's obviousness determination where the Board's analysis "contained no explanation why or how [a skilled artisan] would modify" the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention

  3. In re Chudik

    851 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's anticipation rejection during examination and concluding from the prior art figures that the references do not disclose the relevant limitations without modification, and noting that, "[t]hough our review of an anticipation finding is deferential, we have not hesitated to reverse the Board when substantial evidence does not support its findings"

  4. Application of Hutchison

    154 F.2d 135 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5123. March 6, 1946. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 416,334. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Miller Reese Hutchison for a patent on the process of immunizing hygroscopic sheet material against dimensional variations and on the product thereof. From a decision of the Board of Appeals affirming decisions of primary examiners rejecting certain product claims, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Morrison, Kennedy Campbell, of

  5. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,944 times   959 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  6. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

  7. 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