§

Ex Parte Sophiea et al

11138541 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)
Ex Parte Sophiea et al

8 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,879 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Howmedica Osteonics v. Wright Med. Tech

    540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reference to "the condylar element" meant "only one condylar element"

  3. In re Caveney

    761 F.2d 671 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 113 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 102(b), invention must be "on sale" in the United States

  4. In re Yamamoto

    740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 111 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified”

  5. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  6. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Quigg

    822 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 21 times
    Reviewing a section 145 decision and holding that district court correctly concluded that applicant had successfully rebutted Commissioner's prima facie case of obviousness

  7. In re Johnson

    747 F.2d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 14 times

    Appeal No. 84-952. November 9, 1984. Terence P. Strobough, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for appellant. Harris A. Pitlick, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark

  8. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by