§

Perruso, Anthony P.

13086727 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019)
Perruso, Anthony P.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,333 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 646 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

  3. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar

    935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 392 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding construction of § 112, ¶ 1 requires separate written description and enablement requirements

  4. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.

    230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 74 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the disclosure does not have to provide in kaec verba support in order to satisfy the written description requirement

  5. In re Packard

    751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 33 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Addressing the issues separately

  6. In re Gosteli

    872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]he CCPA's later decisions control because that court always sat en banc”

  7. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  8. In re Taylor

    484 F. App'x 540 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

    2012-1006 06-14-2012 IN RE JASON ARTHUR TAYLOR, REBECCA ANN ZELTINGER, AND JOHN G. COSBY, JR. JASON ARTHUR TAYLOR, Technology Advancement Labs LLC, of Kensington, Maryland, pro se. JOHN G. COSBY, Technology Advancement Labs LLC, of Kensington, Maryland, pro se. REBECCA ANN ZELTINGER, Technology Advancement Labs LLC, of Kensington, Maryland, pro se. RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexan- dria, Virginia, for appellee David J. Kappos

  9. Application of Barker

    559 F.2d 588 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that a broad claim requiring selecting a backing board having a length at least as long as six shingles is not supported by a specification contemplating only backing boards the length of eight or sixteen shingles

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,265 times   1021 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

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 180 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"

  12. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 15 times   28 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)