§

Ex Parte Verpoort et al

13932857 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)
Ex Parte Verpoort et al

15 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,558 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 357 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

  3. Verizon Services Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc.

    602 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting inventor testimony to factual testimony that did not require expert opinion" because the witnesses "had not previously provided expert reports or been qualified as ... expert"

  4. 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

  5. In re Montgomery

    677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 38 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[c]laim construction is a question of law"

  6. In re Oetiker

    977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Reversing for "improperly combined" references, because "[i]f examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent"

  7. In re Graves

    69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 41 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that although the court “cannot exercise jurisdiction over the appeal before the [agency] enters its reconsideration decision,” its jurisdiction “was, in effect, suspended until the [agency] acted”

  8. Application of LeGrice

    301 F.2d 929 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 44 times

    Patent Appeals Nos. 6727, 6728. May 4, 1962. Rehearing Denied July 11, 1962. John H. Leonard, Cleveland, Ohio (Spencer B. Michael, Smith, Michael Gardiner, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commission of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated

  9. In re Mills

    916 F.2d 680 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    No. 90-1184. October 9, 1990. James C. Wray, McLean, Va., argued for appellant. Muriel E. Crawford, Asst. Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With her on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol. Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Inferences. Before MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the November 2, 1989, decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   481 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."

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,016 times   1014 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. 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"

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] 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)