§

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

2019006219 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2020)
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,551 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.

    405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 156 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding party to “blatant admission” in argument made to EPO

  3. Randall Mfg. v. Rea

    733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 84 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of non-obviousness where court “narrowly focus[ed] on the four prior-art references” and ignored record evidence of “the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art” to explain motivation to combine or modify references

  4. Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd.

    606 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 87 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the covenant not to sue proffered by Ablaise, which did not included Dow Jones' parent corporation News Corporation, which is a legally distinct entity, was sufficient to extinguish the controversy between Ablaise and Dow Jones and divest the district court of its Article III jurisdiction

  5. In re Icon Health

    496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 46 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[a]nalogous art to Icon's application," which related to "a treadmill with a folding mechanism and a means for retaining that mechanism in the folded position," included "any area describing hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, or other similar mechanisms—such as the folding bed in" the prior art

  6. In re Woodruff

    919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claimed invention obvious because claimed range (“more than 5% to about 25%” carbon monoxide) abutted range of prior art (“about 1–5%” carbon monoxide)

  7. 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

  8. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

    838 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 13 times

    2015–1853 09-22-2016 ClassCo, Inc., Appellant v. Apple, Inc., Appellee David M. Quinlan, David M. Quinlan, P.C., Princeton, NJ, argued for appellant. Brian Robert Matsui, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by David Lee Fehrman, Mehran Arjomand, Los Angeles, CA. Stoll, Circuit Judge. David M. Quinlan , David M. Quinlan, P.C., Princeton, NJ, argued for appellant. Brian Robert Matsui , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented

  9. TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC

    894 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2016-2285 07-13-2018 TF3 LIMITED, Appellant v. TRE MILANO, LLC, Appellee Bradford J. Badke, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Ching-Lee Fukuda ; Thomas Anthony Broughan, III, Anna Mayergoyz Weinberg, Washington, DC. Jeffrey Glenn Sheldon, Cislo & Thomas LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Laura Lloyd ; Douglas Hunt Morseburg, Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, Pasadena, CA; Thomas J. Peistrup, Tre Milano, LLC, Culver City, CA.

  10. In re Self

    671 F.2d 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    Appeal No. 81-542. February 18, 1982. Rehearing Denied April 22, 1982. Roland T. Bryan, Stamford, Conn., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., for Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board)

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,133 times   479 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."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,005 times   1001 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 186 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 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  16. Section 1.136 - 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)

  17. 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