§

Ex Parte Zoltai et al

13450073 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2015)
Ex Parte Zoltai et al

16 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,358 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    574 U.S. 318 (2015)   Cited 1,224 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo

  3. Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

    514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 446 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

  4. Exxon Chemical Patents v. Lubrizol Corp.

    64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 262 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claimed composition exists at the moment that each of the claimed ingredients are present in the amounts specifically claimed

  5. In re Wright

    999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 90 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Relying on art published five years after filing date to show what was "sufficiently unpredictable" as of filing date

  6. In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

    696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the conclusion that the claimed electrochemical sensor could not have external wires was supported by, among other considerations, the fact that "every embodiment disclosed in the specification shows . . . sensor without external cables or wires"

  7. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  8. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  9. Application of Moore

    439 F.2d 1232 (C.C.P.A. 1971)   Cited 46 times
    Noting that the question is whether the scope of enablement conveyed by the disclosure to a person of ordinary skill in the art is commensurate with the scope of protection taught by the claims

  10. In re Howarth

    654 F.2d 103 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that disclosure of information in Rhodesia, Panama and Luxembourg was insufficient to enable a patent under § 112

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,280 times   1025 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 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,938 times   949 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. 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"

  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 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing