§

QUALCOMM Incorporated

14513121 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020)
QUALCOMM Incorporated

8 Cited authorities

  1. SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.

    511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 55 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that paper on FTP website, while publicly available, was not publicly accessible because it was “not catalogued or indexed in a meaningful way”

  2. In re Cronyn

    890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 66 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a thesis presentation made to a handful of faculty and not catalogued or indexed in a "meaningful" way was not a printed publication

  3. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.

    929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 7 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Concluding Article III requirements were satisfied where patent validity affected the size of royalty payments to plaintiff

  4. 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."

  5. Section 1.97 - [Effective 1/19/2025] Filing of information disclosure statement

    37 C.F.R. § 1.97   Cited 40 times   20 Legal Analyses

    (a) In order for an applicant for a patent or for a reissue of a patent to have an information disclosure statement in compliance with § 1.98 considered by the Office during the pendency of the application, the information disclosure statement must satisfy one of paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section and be accompanied by any applicable information disclosure statement size fee under § 1.17(v) . (b) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant

  6. Section 41.41 - Reply brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.41   Cited 9 times   25 Legal Analyses

    (a)Timing. Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer. (b)Content. (1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence

  7. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by

  8. 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