§

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

2020005655 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2021)
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

26 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

    792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 638 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. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 619 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Personalized Media Comm. v. Int. T. Comm

    161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 523 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim term “digital detector” recited sufficient structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6

  4. 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

  5. Medical Instr. and Diagnostics v. Elekta

    344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 328 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court erred in finding that defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact on obvious; noting, inter alia , that "[defendant's] expert's declaration quotes from several prior art articles that expressly discuss the combination of stereotaxy with computer imaging technologies"

  6. Technology v. Videotek

    545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 252 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry

  7. 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

  8. Blackboard v. DESIRE2LEARN

    368 F. App'x 111 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 164 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even "a cursory motion suffices to preserve an issue on JMOL so long as it 'serves the purposes of Rule 50, i.e., to alert the court to the party's legal position and to put the opposing party on notice of the moving party's position as to the insufficiency of the evidence.'"

  9. Telcordia Tech. v. Cisco Systems

    612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that “controller” was sufficient disclosure because “[t]he record shows that an ordinary artisan would have recognized the controller as an electronic device with a known structure”

  10. In re O'Farrell

    853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 168 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,420 times   1069 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 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. 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"

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. 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