§

Melrose V. Kelley et al.

13270886 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)
Melrose V. Kelley et al.

26 Cited authorities

  1. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 318 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  2. Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.

    323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 198 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preamble limited claim where claim referred to “said vehicle master clutch” and “said drive train” and those terms were described in the preamble

  3. In re Jolley

    308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 101 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the Board's determination that “reasonable everyday problems” excused gaps in the inventive record

  4. Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

    110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 115 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of such a suggestion to combine is dispositive in an obviousness determination"

  5. Slip Track Systems, Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc.

    304 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "the parties . . . dispute only whether one limitation is part of the interfering subject matter, and determination of this issue is dependent upon issues of law alone, we will resolve this issue on appeal."

  6. Sewall v. Walters

    21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 87 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventorship is a question of law

  7. Agilent Tech. v. Affymetrix

    567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's holding that an applicant's written description was adequate because the court erred in its claim construction

  8. Coleman v. Dines

    754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 96 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.

  9. Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Techs. Corp.

    603 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting such a construction as "because the single claimed direction 'forward' would then encompass two directions at right angles to each other"

  10. Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC

    846 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 20 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a "communication of an idea different from the claimed invention even where that idea would make the claimed idea obvious" or a "general research suggestion" is insufficient for derivation

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,389 times   1048 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 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  13. Section 146 - Civil action in case of derivation proceeding

    35 U.S.C. § 146   Cited 283 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Filing in the Patent and Trademark Office of a certified copy of the judgment

  14. Section 11 - Exchange of copies of patents and applications with foreign countries

    35 U.S.C. § 11   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) IN GENERAL.-The Director may exchange copies of specifications and drawings of United States patents and published applications for patents for those of foreign countries. The Director shall not enter into an agreement to provide such copies of specifications and drawings of United States patents and applications to a foreign country, other than a USMCA country or a WTO member country, without the express authorization of the Secretary of Commerce. (b) DEFINITIONS.-In this section- (1) the term

  15. Section 5-B:6 - Declaration of Status; Tax Exemption; Liability

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5-B:6   Cited 1 times

    I.Any pooled risk management program meeting the standards required under this chapter is not an insurance company, reciprocal insurer, or insurer under the laws of this state, and administration of any activities of the plan shall not constitute doing an insurance business for purposes of regulation or taxation. II.Any such program operating under this chapter, whether or not a body corporate, may sue or be sued; make contracts; hold and dispose of real property; and borrow money, contract debts

  16. Section 41.121 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.121   Cited 15 times   77 Legal Analyses

    (a)Types of motions - (1)Substantive motions. Consistent with the notice of requested relief, if any, and to the extent the Board authorizes, a party may file a motion: (i) To redefine the scope of the contested case, (ii) To change benefit accorded for the contested subject matter, or (iii) For judgment in the contested case. (2)Responsive motions. The Board may authorize a party to file a motion to amend or add a claim, to change inventorship, or otherwise to cure a defect raised in a notice of

  17. Section 41.201 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.201   Cited 15 times   15 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in §§ 41.2 and 41.100 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Accord benefit means Board recognition that a patent application provides a proper constructive reduction to practice under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) . Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) , in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive

  18. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal

  19. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order

  20. Section 41.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 41.8   Cited 2 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) In an appeal brief (§§ 41.37 , 41.67 , or 41.68 ) or at the initiation of a contested case (§ 41.101 ), and within 20 days of any change during the proceeding, a party must identify: (1) Its real party-in-interest, and (2) Each judicial or administrative proceeding that could affect, or be affected by, the Board proceeding. (b) For contested cases, a party seeking judicial review of a Board proceeding must file a notice with the Board of the judicial review within 20 days of the filing of the

  21. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1

  22. Section 41.205 - Settlement agreements

    37 C.F.R. § 41.205

    (a)Constructive notice; time for filing. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135(c) , an agreement or understanding, including collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of an interference must be filed prior to the termination of the interference between the parties to the agreement. After a final decision is entered by the Board, an interference is considered terminated when no appeal ( 35 U.S.C. 141 ) or other review ( 35 U.S.C. 146 ) has been or