§

QSC Audio Products, LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc.

09151140 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2015)
QSC Audio Products, LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 52 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"

  2. Application of Antonie

    559 F.2d 618 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 76-681. Decided August 18, 1977. Arthur H. Seidel, Thomas W. Ehrmann, Milwaukee, Wis. (Quarles Brady, Milwaukee, Wis.), attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, R.D. Edmonds, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and HERBERT N. MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court. BALDWIN, Judge. This is an appeal

  3. Donnelly Garment Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    123 F.2d 215 (8th Cir. 1942)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Donnelly Garment Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, (8 CCA) 123 F.2d 215: "It is a long-established rule that judges of the same court will not knowingly review, reverse or overrule each other's decisions.

  4. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 13,109 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

  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. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,384 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  7. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 4,063 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  8. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,667 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

  9. Rule 807 - Residual Exception

    Fed. R. Evid. 807   Cited 1,634 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

  10. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 408 times   203 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding

  11. 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"

  12. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  13. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  14. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,