§

Koji Murayama

13430040 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)
Koji Murayama

10 Cited authorities

  1. Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc.

    841 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the specification's usage of the disjunctive phrase “or otherwise” in the sentence “the jaws may be perforated or otherwise provided with passages” demonstrated the terms did not refer to the same things

  2. Brown v. Barbacid

    436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that six single-day gaps in a 31–day critical period did not defeat a showing of reasonable diligence

  3. In re Steed

    802 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 15 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 2014–1458. 2015-10-1 In re Thomas STEED, Sourav Bhattacharya, Sandeep Seshadrijois, Appellants. Sourav Bhattacharya, Fountain Hills, AZ, pro se. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Jamie Lynne Simpson, Amy J. Nelson. NEWMAN Sourav Bhattacharya, Fountain Hills, AZ, pro se. Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee

  4. Keizer v. Bradley

    270 F.2d 396 (C.C.P.A. 1959)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 6399. June 30, 1959. Rehearing Denied October 6, 1959. Leonard S. Lyon and Richard E. Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal. (Olin V. Mitchell and A. Russinoff, Princeton, N.J., of counsel), for appellant. Allen V. Hazeltine, Thomas M. Ferrill, Jr., and Fordyce A. Bothwell, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Acting Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN and JOHNSON (retired), Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is in an interference between a patent application of William E. Bradley, Serial Number

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 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."

  6. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,023 times   1024 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  7. 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"

  8. 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

  9. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 117 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  10. 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