13 Cited authorities
McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.
837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 395 times 67 Legal AnalysesHolding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 385 times 13 Legal AnalysesHolding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.
441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 339 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding a patent claim construction that reads limitations out of a claim is "contrary to the principle that claim language should not [be] treated as meaningless"
Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP
616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 210 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding "hinged arm" could not be connected to itself
Johnson Johnston Assoc v. R.E. Serv
285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 193 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding that patentee's subjective intent is irrelevant to determining whether unclaimed subject matter has been disclosed and therefore dedicated to the public
In re Packard
751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 37 times 11 Legal AnalysesAddressing the issues separately
Application of Steele
305 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1962) Cited 2 timesPatent Appeal No. 6719. July 25, 1962. J. Hart Evans, Louis C. Smith, Jr., New York City, and Paul A. Rose, Washington D.C., for appellants. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions
Application of Danly
263 F.2d 844 (C.C.P.A. 1959) Cited 4 timesLimiting claims to require that the claimed device actually be connected to an alternating current source because, although the claims "do not positively recite a source of alternating current as an element of the claims," any other interpretation would render certain language in the claims meaningless
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,413 times 1065 Legal AnalysesRequiring 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
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,543 times 2297 Legal AnalysesDefining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 188 times 63 Legal AnalysesGiving 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"
Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 134 Cited 98 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
Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board
37 C.F.R. § 41.50 Cited 34 times 30 Legal AnalysesRequiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing