§

Ex Parte Srinivasan et al

13864131 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)
Ex Parte Srinivasan et al

11 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 614 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  2. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 324 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

  3. Biomedino v. Waters

    490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 198 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure"

  4. Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.

    769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 136 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim terms "program recognition device" and "program loading device" are means-plus-function terms because they fail to connote sufficient structure either in the form of hardware or software

  5. Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.

    417 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 169 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while "[w]aiver is a procedural issue," the question of whether there has been "waiver of a claim construction argument . . . [is] indisputably unique to patent law"

  6. In re Montgomery

    677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 37 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[c]laim construction is a question of law"

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,288 times   1031 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,065 times   462 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."

  9. 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"

  10. 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

  11. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)