§

Ex Parte WANG et al

12165461 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2019)
Ex Parte WANG et al

12 Cited authorities

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

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,422 times   95 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. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.

    766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 432 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

  4. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Eve-USA, Inc.

    851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 148 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "satisfaction of the Panduit factors satisifie[d] principles of apportionment" where, "on the undisputed facts of this record," it was clear the plaintiff’s damages were "tied to the worth of its patented features"

  5. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.

    424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 180 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Supreme Court's "ready for patenting test" set forth in Pfaff, a case concerning § 102(b)'s on-sale bar, "applies to the public use bar under § 102(b)"

  6. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.

    737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 77 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding where the claimed value fell within prior art range, burden of production switched to the party opposing the obviousness challenge, while burden of proof remanded with challenger

  7. Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.

    687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 62 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a prior art reference disclosing a range of concentrations expressly disclosed a particular concentration within that range

  8. Crown Packaging Tech. v. Ball Metal Beverage

    635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, "[w]here there is a material dispute as to the credibility and weight that should be afforded to conflicting expert reports, summary judgment is usually inappropriate"

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,419 times   1068 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

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 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"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 99 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

  12. 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)