§

iRobot Corporation

2020005566 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020)
iRobot Corporation

11 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,559 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. Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. U.S.

    265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 465 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim limitation that average particle diameter be greater than 5 was not indefinite where no upper limit on particle size was given

  3. Energizer Holdings v. Int'l Trade Com'n

    435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 174 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an antecedent basis can be present by implication"

  4. Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Int'l Trade

    341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a patent claim indefinite where the patentee failed to specify a method because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to discern the bounds of the invention

  5. Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.

    274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecution history estoppel did not apply because claim limitation had been amended but not narrowed during prosecution of patent

  6. Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Indus

    810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 95 times
    Finding amendment during reissue proceeding to provide an antecedent basis for phrase did not alter substantive scope of claims

  7. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,394 times   1049 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,148 times   482 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."

  9. 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"

  10. 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

  11. 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