§

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY

2020000206 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020)
KING SAUD UNIVERSITY

17 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 637 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite "if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim"

  2. Finisar v. Directv

    523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 423 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

  3. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 328 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

  4. Superguide Corp. v. Directv Enterprises

    358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 307 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party "waived its right to assert a construction other than 'matches or equals' for the term 'meet'" because it agreed to that construction in its briefs

  5. Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.

    675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 225 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because Noah had made the same indefiniteness arguments during claim construction before the district court, waiver did not apply

  6. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 266 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims at issue as indefinite because they simultaneously claimed an apparatus and method steps

  7. Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.

    198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 298 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a means-plus-function limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art

  8. Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

    102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that the limitation "perforation means for tearing" was not a means-plus-function claim because the word "perforation" constituted sufficient structure

  9. Boehringer Ingelheim v. Schering-Plough

    320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 136 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the court "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party . . . disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury was not required to believe"

  10. Pressure Products Medical v. Greatbatch

    599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court properly undertook to clarify claim term during trial, since failure to do so would “invite the jury to define th[e] term on its own in a manner [the Federal Circuit] has questioned in [previous decisions]”

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,397 times   1051 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 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,521 times   2289 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  13. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 187 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 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