§

Ex Parte Tano et al

09761915 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2009)
Ex Parte Tano et al

17 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 662 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  2. Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating Packing

    731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 235 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]n original patent cannot be infringed once a reissue patent has issued, for the original patent is surrendered" and "[t]he original claims are dead"

  3. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 150 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  4. North American Container v. Plastipak Pack

    415 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 119 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that recapture rule applied to reissued claims that had been “enlarged” and were not “materially narrowed in other respects”

  5. In re Clement

    131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Deciding as a matter of law "whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims"

  6. Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc.

    142 F.3d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 49 times
    Finding patentee's repeated arguments regarding the limitations constituted an admission that the limitations were necessary to overcome the prior art and the reissue claims impermissibly recaptured surrendered subject matter

  7. Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc.

    998 F.2d 992 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 32 times
    Finding surrender by way of claim amendments

  8. Application of Swinehart

    439 F.2d 210 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 42 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "transparent" was definite because the disclosure, which showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always transmitted even though the precise degree of transparency varied depending on certain factors, was sufficiently clear

  9. Haliczer v. United States

    356 F.2d 541 (Fed. Cir. 1966)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 13-61. February 18, 1966. Samuel L. Davidson, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for plaintiff; Donald A. Kaul, Herbert J. Jacobi and Marvin R. Stern, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Louise O'Neil, St. Paul, Minn., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Douglas, for defendant. Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and LARAMORE, DURFEE, DAVIS and COLLINS, Judges. PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] This opinion incorporates, with minor changes and some added discussion, the opinion prepared, at the direction of the

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,362 times   1046 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 times   479 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,995 times   1001 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  15. 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

  16. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  17. Section 1.136 - 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)