§

Ex Parte Zhao et al

14133726 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2018)
Ex Parte Zhao et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  2. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  3. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 24 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant

  4. In re Leithem

    661 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 17 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the Board issued a new ground of rejection despite the fact that the Board “agreed with Leithem” that Novak did not teach a fluffed pulp

  5. In re Biedermann

    733 F.3d 329 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2013–1080. 2013-10-18 In re Lutz BIEDERMANN and Jurgen Harms. Luke Dauchot, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Nimalka R. Wickramasekera and Benjamin A. Herbert. Of counsel on the brief was Mark Garscia, Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, of Glendale, CA. Monica B. Lateef, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Nathan K. Kelley, Deputy Solicitor, and

  6. Application of Kronig

    539 F.2d 1300 (C.C.P.A. 1976)   Cited 18 times
    Holding no new ground of rejection when the Board relied on the same statutory basis and the same reasoning advanced by the examiner

  7. 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."

  8. 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)

  9. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by