§

Ex Parte Wu et al

13243446 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019)
Ex Parte Wu et al

14 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 653 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. Brenner v. Manson

    383 U.S. 519 (1966)   Cited 111 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion"

  3. In re Brana

    51 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 42 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent applicants had established the utility of claimed therapeutic compounds by presenting in vitro test results and evidence of structural similarity to therapeutically useful compounds

  4. In re Fisher

    421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that a claimed invention have "specific and substantial utility to satisfy § 101," and rejecting a claim to a gene sequence where the sequence has only been shown to have "biological activity"

  5. In re Buchner

    929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Ruling that "an expert's opinion on the ultimate legal issue [of enablement] must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement."

  6. In re Pearson

    494 F.2d 1399 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming § 103 rejection when § 102 rejection would also have been appropriate

  7. Application of Fouche

    439 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 23 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8484. April 22, 1971. John F. Witherspoon, Harold C. Wegner, Arlington, Va., attorneys of record, for appellant. Stevens, Davis, Miller Mosher, Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., Henry W. Tarring II, Falls Church, Va., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. LANE, Judge. This appeal is from the decision

  8. Application of Folkers

    344 F.2d 970 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 7304. May 6, 1965. I. Louis Wolk, Rahway, N.J., Raymond Underwood, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (J.E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges. WORLEY, Chief Judge. Folkers and Shunk appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 of their patent application for "2,3-Dimethoxy-5-Methyl-Benzoquinones

  9. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,274 times   1022 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 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,399 times   2189 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 182 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"

  12. Section 101 - Executive departments

    5 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 135 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Listing the Department of Commerce as an Executive department

  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 1.132 - Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections

    37 C.F.R. § 1.132   Cited 104 times   13 Legal Analyses

    When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. 37 C.F.R. §1.132 65 FR 57057, Sept. 20, 2000 Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed in the