§

Float'N'Grill LLC

2021004183 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)
Float'N'Grill LLC

16 Cited authorities

  1. Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

    514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 456 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

  2. Power-One Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.

    599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 147 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a claim is not indefinite if "the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusions may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree."

  3. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs

    806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 253 times
    Holding that the limitation that the claimed wheelchair have a "front leg portion . . . so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats thereof" was not indefinite

  4. U.S. Chemicals Co. v. Carbide Corp.

    315 U.S. 668 (1942)   Cited 97 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 64

  5. Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc.

    771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 23 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that safety features "serially mentioned as part of the broader disclosure" did not amount to an explicit and unequivocal disclosure

  6. 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

  7. Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC

    926 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 8 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Forum, original claims were directed to a "workpiece machining implement" that required a "plurality of arbors supported by the body member" so as to allow the member to rotate along different axes.

  8. In re Rasmussen

    650 F.2d 1212 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 46 times
    Concluding that the generic step of "adheringly applying" one layer to an adjacent layer satisfied the written description requirement, because "one skilled in the art who read specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered."

  9. In re Peters

    723 F.2d 891 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no lack of written description for claim omitting a tapered tip where there was no evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that a tapered tip was essential to the invention

  10. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co.

    150 U.S. 38 (1893)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting reissue claims because they were “merely suggested or indicated in the original specification,” and it was not sufficiently clear that they “constitute[d] parts or portions of the invention”

  11. 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

  12. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 467 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents

  13. 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"

  14. 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

  15. 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)

  16. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and