§

Ex Parte VISIN

13670510 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019)
Ex Parte VISIN

18 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,357 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,735 times   164 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"

  3. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.

    417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 586 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding claim term “aesthetically pleasing” indefinite because, even though the preferred embodiment provided “examples of aesthetic features of screen displays that can be controlled by the authoring system,” the specification did not indicate “what selection of these features would be ‘aesthetically pleasing’ ”

  4. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.

    766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 420 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding terms of degree are not inherently indefinite as long as claim language provides enough certainty to one of skill in art when read in context of invention

  5. Star Scientific v. R.J. Tobacco

    537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 391 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that intent may be proven circumstantially, "[b]ut such evidence must still be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement"

  6. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.

    599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 226 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "not interfering substantially" is sufficiently definite because a skilled artisan could use "the examples in the specification to determine whether interference with hybridization is substantial"

  7. Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.

    66 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 306 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a position taken to establish patentability in view of prior art is a "substantive position on the technology for which a patent is sought, and will generally generate an estoppel," while arguments made in order to more particularly point out the applicant's invention are "not presumed to raise an estoppel"

  8. Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc.

    264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 186 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding measurements excluded from the scope of the claim during prosecution could not infringe the limitation "substantially uniform"

  9. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc.

    311 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 105 times
    Holding that the term "substantially constant wall thickness" was not impermissibly indefinite even though "[i]t may of course occur that persons experienced in a technologic field will have divergent opinions as to the meaning of a term"

  10. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 87 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,289 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,066 times   464 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."

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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)